The RIAA and the digital divide

There's a maelstrom of activity on the Internet, with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) at the center. Relax, this isn't a rant against the RIAA. A simple Google search will give you plenty of those, written with more insight and eloquence than I could muster.

Instead, I'd like to offer up the RIAA as a litmus test for which side of the digital divide someone's on. Gizmodo has launched an initiative to boycott the RIAA, urging everyone to not buy anything from the major labels. Others have taken up the call -- Podcasting News is spotlighting indie music podcasts throughout the month of March. There's a grassroots initiative to "bum rush the charts" -- on March 22nd everyone is to purchase a certain song on iTunes, causing a spike in sales and hopefully making a point. Online, the reaction against the RIAA seems to be everywhere -- online.

Those on the other side of the digital divide remain unaware of any of this. So here's the test. Ask someone if they've heard of the RIAA. Their response will be most illuminating. I've tried it with some of our friends who spend a great deal of time online forwarding e-mail jokes and recipes. Although they're on the Internet, they're not really on the Internet. They have no idea what I'm talking about.

As I've pointed out before, there's a digital divide not just between the on-liners and off-liners, but within the on-line community as well. Asking "What have you heard about the RIAA?" can be a way to illuminate that digital subdivision.

- Ralph

Public Radio Marketing and Development

The annual Public Radio Marketing and Development Conference has its opening reception tonight. For the folks responsible for fund-raising and finding underwriters for their respective non-profit stations, this has been a rough year, indeed (as it has for many). I'll be paying close attention to what the prevailing thoughts are about some of the following trends and issues facing public radio.

1) The decreasing audience. 

The good news is that younger people are turning to public radio -- especially the news programs. Bad news is that they're more likely to listen online or through a podcast aggregator than over the air. And if someone's getting their programs direct from NPR, why should they contribute to the local public radio station that they never listen to?

2) The digital divide. 

The bulk of public radio's audience (and contributers) are on the wrong side of the digital divide. Consider: one of the hottest fundraising gifts right now are pre-loaded iPods -- because the big dollar contributers would like to have an iPod, but can't figure out how iTunes works. And with more of public broadcasting moving online, there's a real danger that the core audience might get left behind.

3) The aging audience. 

An offshoot of the above. The new services and programs public radio's offering are virtually invisible to the older 60 crowd -- because they're on the wrong side of the digital divide.

4) Analog dollars, digital pennies. 

Sure, younger people are readily consuming public radio's Internet offerings. But the revenue generated is far less than old-fashioned underwriting and on-air fund drives. But that's where the audience is moving. So how do you make up the shortfall.

5) The role of the local station. 

There was a time when most markets only had one public radio station. The station had an identity, and was usually closely associated with the community. The rise of NPR homogenized stations, and now it's not uncommon for two or three stations in the same market to simultaneously run the exact same programming from NPR (like "Morning Edition"). So the individual station became less important than the national programming it served up. And now that it's basically available online, there's little reason to tune into a local broadcaster to get national content. So what's the role of the local station now, and why should anyone contribute to support it?

These may not necessarily be the issues a lot of the attendees have on their minds, but those are the questions I'd like to hear answers for.

 - Ralph

Day 91 of the WJMA Podwatch.

Voting across the digital divide

According to a recent survey from MediaVest, there's an interesting split between supporters for the two presidential candidates. John McCain's supporters tend to rely almost exclusively on TV and radio for their news, while those in Barak Obama's camp are "media generalists" -- that is, they get their information from a variety of sources both off- and online.

At the same time, most of those polled saw the Internet as the least reliable source of information, while TV got the highest.

So what does it all mean? Personally, I believe we're seeing a transition from old to new media.

Traditional politics tend to be most effective on the offline side of the digital divide (which makes sense, as their techniques were developed long before there even wasy an online side). The sources of information are limited. Events, once broadcast, soon decay into short clips and sound bites before disappearing entirely, only to be referred to when necessary. Accuracy isn't so much of an issue, as any position can be stated, spun, refuted and/or ignored depending on the moment. In the world of broadcast media, there's no time for reflection, and impression is everything.

Online, it's different -- as Hillary Clinton discovered early on with her story of a dangerous mission to Bosnia. Anything that's a matter of record remains so, and usually remains available long after the moment has past. Within hours original CBS News footage was available on YouTube for all to see (and it's still there). Fact-checking had come to the campaign.

Almost all the claims and accusations made by the candidates can be easily checked online -- and usually from the original sources. For those who use the Internet regularly, it's a fairly simple matter to separate fact from fiction.

So why does the Internet rate so poorly as a source of information? Because while there's a great deal of information out there, a majority of it is unverified. Rumors crop up with regularity, and repeated from blog to blog and news site to news site, take on the appearance of reality simply by the shear number of appearances. Anyone can publish anything -- and they do. On the web, authoritative and well-researched articles have equal weight with ill-conceived delusional rants.

Mainstream media (MSM) content is subject to editorial control, which is perhaps why it's seen as more reliable.

But there's another level to the digital divide. Plenty of people only marginally use the net. They forward jokes and recipes, putter around on a few sites, but for the most part they don't really use the Internet -- and therefore have no way to filter (or in some cases no interest in) the sea of information it contains. Those are the ones, I think, who prefer MSM to the Internet for information.

Those who are used to actively using the Internet, though, have a different perspective. They're the ones who avoid constructing echo chambers that only feed them the information they want to hear. It's the active users who don't accept stories at their face value, but expect to see links back to the source material -- links that they'll follow to look at the sources and judge for themselves.

Are these the media generalists? Partially. You can get your information from many sources, but unless you examine it, you're not much beyond accepting what MSM dishes out. While there are plenty of folks who take everything the McCain campaign says as true, there are plenty who do the same with Obama's messages.

So how to make sense of it all? Well, I always ask the question, "Oh, yeah? Says who?" And with a little help from the Internet, I can usually find out -- and then make an informed decision.

- Ralph

Day 118 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Radio Daze

So is ignorance really bliss? Or is it self-destructive?

As I've commented before, the problem with the digital divide is that it's completely insular. The firestorms of controversy and criticism that sweep through the online community are completely unknown to those offline.

Commercial radio thrashes about desperately trying just about anything to hold on to a shrinking (and aging) audience. The frantic pushing of HD Radio shows that commercial broadcasters know that something's wrong -- and their approach shows they have not a clue about what audiences want, or how to provide it.

The answers are online -- and the answer is to move online. But the decision-makers at these stations live offline. And so they never see the solution -- or are even aware it's out there in (virtual) plain view.

Here're three examples of where we are:

1) Audiographics bids adieu
Ken Dardis, a radio professional who's been pushing and prodding the industry for years, has finally given up. In his final post he writes:

...the decision will be either to stop writing altogether (because it doesn't seem that radio is interested in how to step into the future), or to write about these new things I'm learning which are turning the advertising industry on its head (and which have been brought up in this column hundreds of times).

After writing, and documenting and analysing the path radio needs to take, Dardis is through trying to shout across the digital divide. He's moving on. And who could blame him?

2) Hear 2.0 turns up the heat
Mark Ramsey, another radio professional, has continually commented and pointed the way for radio. In a recent post, he took the gloves off (and not for the first time):

It's time for radio to stop imagining that success can be achieved by consolidating and cutting until one day your entire group is run from a PC in a locked room like W.O.P.R. in the 1983 movie Wargames. No need for PD's or air talent in that world. No need for marketing or research or promotion or staff. No need for anything but sales and - if you're lucky - an ever-diminishing number of listeners. It's Dabney Coleman and a big Central Brain that asks millions of listeners at once: "Want to play a game?"
Is that the kind of radio industry you want? Because if you mistake the current down market for a cycle rather than a trend, that's exactly the one you're going to get.

Looks like Ramsey is also getting a little tired of shouting across that divide.

3) At WJMA, nothing's changed
It's been a little while since I offered up an analysis of the ramshackle website of our local radio station WJMA. It's been a while, but the DJ's page is still "under construction," the job page still wants someone for "overseas programming" and the news page is still blank with a date of November 9.

Lots of people read those posts -- even some in the Orange area. And yet, no comment for any of the posts, and no change. Piedmont Communications remain incommunicado -- offline.

It's one thing for an individual to opt out of the online experience. But for a business in decline to steadfastly refuse to consider investigating the most important cultural tool of the 21st century? That kind of ignorance can be fatal.

- Ralph

The Digital Subdivision

As the Internet buzzes with the latest news about the iPhone, Apple TV and the new devices introduced at CES, let's keep in mind that the sweeping changes predicted won't be universal. Not everyone in this country is plugged into the Internet, and thereby are excluded from a lot of the benefits these devices bring.

Much has been made about the "digital divide" separating those with Internet access and those without -- the "haves" and the "have-nots." Let's take a closer look at the "haves" side of that divide. It's not as uniform as you might think.

A great many of my friends and acquaintances can only be considered marginally online. Some are hampered by dial-up (still an issue in the hinterlands of Orange County, VA). Even if they wanted to, the difficulties of accessing sites with extensive graphics, flash animation, downloadable audio or video content with a slow modem effectively cuts them off from most of what the Internet has to offer.

Overlapping that line of dial-up vs. broadband is another division. I don't know if anyone's come up with an official name, but I call them the minimalists. This group is an offshoot of those who think of the computer as a typewriter with a screen. Their use of the Internet is minimal, and they seem uninterested in expanding beyond their extremely limited knowledge and skill.

Minimalists use e-mail, but primarily to forward urban legends, jokes and cute photos as opposed to active communication. One of our friends sends us several e-mails weekly, and over the course of several years we have yet to receive an original message.

I know of other friends and family members who only visit game sites like Puzzle Pirates. Some just play online bridge. Anything wrong with this? Not at all. But while a minimalist may spend several hours playing some flash animation game, they're usually oblivious to the web's other resources. The burning issues covered by online newssites, blogs and forums go unread. To minimalists, the global network that some of us live and work in simply don't exist -- just as it doesn't for those on the "have-not" side of the divide.

As we continue our discussions about the impact of technology, keep in mind that a significant part of those on the Internet are only marginally so. And that group, the minimalists, can slow the rate of change we postulate. Time's "Person of the Year" may have been "YOU," but it wasn't necessarily them.

- Ralph

Why I went green (#Iranelection)

Even at this late date, many people I know ask why my avatar's green (it's that digital subdivision again). And while the facile answer would be "to support the Iranian opposition," it's actually much more complex and yet more fundamentally simple than that.

First off, Iranian politics -- like those of any country -- aren't a simple case of good guy vs. bad guy. That only happens in the movies. Mir Hossein Mousavi, like current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was active in the Iranian revolution and supported the taking of American hostages.

So my avatar is not green to support Mousavi.

Secondly, I understand that Iran -- like every other country -- has a digital divide. And, I think, some digital subdivisions as well. Not every Iranian -- just like not every American -- has access to the Internet, or is familiar with Twitter, or understands how to upload videos to YouTube. So the initial burst of protests we saw was from a self-selecting crowd of people familiar with the workings of the Internet. Certainly not representative of all Iranians.

So my avatar is not green in support of a perceived universal protest by all Iranians.

There's a great deal of huffing and puffing that the United States government should Do Something to support these Iranian freedom fighters. This is an internal matter, and the acrimony surrounding the election is something Iranians must settle for themselves. (Imagine how we would feel if other countries felt they needed to Do Something when the results of the Bush/Gore election were in dispute.)

So my avatar is not green in support of foreign intervention.

Why is it green? To show support for the ability for anyone to have a voice on the world stage -- and for that ability to remain. Some citizens of Iran denied other outlets, aired their grievances in a most public forum -- the world-wide web. And in the process, forced their government to address their concerns in that same forum.

Now this is still a very complicated situation. The Iranian government's countered with their own blog posts, tweets, and videos. Rumors are flying fast and furious, and sometimes it's not immediately apparent what's eye-witness reportage and what's disinformation.

But the truth seems to eventually will out, somehow. And that's what I'm in favor of. The events of the past few weeks have shown how much more difficult it's become for any institution to keep a lid on things when any individual can potentially talk to the world.

What will play out in Iran? I can't say. But I support all the Iranians willing to risk their safety (and in some cases their lives) to let the world see what they see. Because I see this as just the beginning.

We've seen such online revolutions for relatively unimportant things, such as the Digg/DRM code suppression controversy, and Facebook terms of use uproar. But this time, those tools are being used for something that impacts the real -- rather than the virtual -- world.

And that's what I'm supporting.

- Ralph

The RIAA and the bum's rush

Today we see how powerful the web actually is. Today, everyone participating in the "Bum Rush the Charts" initiative will sign on to iTunes and purchase "Mine Again" by Black Lab. The goal is to show the music industry how much clout podcasters and bloggers really have, and how much purchasing power the RIAA risks losing by its continued whack-a-mole lawsuit strategies. If the plan is successful, "Mine Again" will rocket to the top of the iTunes chart for one day.

I invite you to pay close attention to the effects of this initiative. I'm curious to see how "Bum Rush the Charts" plays out across the digital divide -- and the digital subdivisions. Here's some things to look for over the next few days:

1) Coverage of any kind -- even a mention -- in the mainstream media
2) Coverage of any kind in the online editions of any mainstream media outlet
3) Coverage of any kind in blogs and other online media sites not directly involved with music

Ask others if they've even heard of the initiative. Most of the people I know haven't -- they're on the Internet but not really on the Internet. I hope the Bum's Rush succeeds (I've already purchased my copy). I wonder if it will succeed in crossing the digital subdivisions.

- Ralph

Back on the grid -- reality check!

Last week I postulated what would happen when I was forced to forgo the Internet for a few days. I officially dropped off the web last Wednesday evening, and didn't log back on until early Monday morning. Some things were as I anticipated, others weren't.

Professional consequences
I was able to talk my business partner through a mastering session Friday, and everything seemed to go just fine. Credit Mark Goldstein at Sandalwood Studios for that. We've worked together for a while now, and I knew he could make aesthetic decisions that would be in line to what I would have done.

E-mail was a disaster, with about 400 missives waiting to be read/deleted/answered/filed. The biggest problem was an order that had come in through Amazon. I normally turn those within 24 hours, but I neglected to have someone in place to handle that part of the operation, so the order shipped today (just at the deadline for shipping), rather than Friday which it should have.

G0ing through the e-mails proved to be more of chore than anything -- turned out most of it wasn't time sensitive. All-in-all, Digital Chips, Inc. and DCD Records managed to do quite well without me.

Personal consequences
There weren't nearly as many e-mails waiting. Most of them were unimportant, and none of them were time-sensitive.

One odd thing happened, though. After four days without a single tweet, I return to discover I gained three new followers at Twitter.com! And there's new friend requests at FaceBook. Perhaps I should be more sparing in my commentary...

And there's a spike in the traffic for this blog. Ken always kills me in traffic on this blog. He submits less posts than I do, the posts are shorter than mine, and they seem to be much more popular. I'm guessing there's a lesson in all this.

Informational consequences
I missed the last debate, and for the first time this election cycle, I had no recourse. I couldn't watch it online later -- I had to rely on what I could pick up from the newscasters, pundits (and SNL) on successive days to piece together what happened.

The first time I heard about Joe the Plumber was in SNL's Thursday night special. I read a profile of the actual person in the Intelligencer Journal Friday, but I was limited to the information contained in the article.

We watched the morning news from Pittsburgh before heading out each morning, and it was depressingly the same. There was about 15 minutes of actual content recycled over and over, each retelling having exactly the same amount of information with slightly different intros.

Information was easier to digest off the grid -- there was less of it. And because I couldn't get online, I began to feel the responsibility of checking sources lifting from my shoulders. I had forgotten how much simpler life is on the other side of the digital divide -- and how much scarier. It was difficult to piece together any kind of narrative with the news stories that were being tossed about. Without background or context, it seemed as if everything was happening randomly -- no wonder most folks are looking for simple, black-and-white solutions. They want to restore order!

Bottom line
I appreciated my time offline. I took long walks in the morning, had some great conversations with my dad, thought about things in depth without the continual attention-diverting tug of multiple RSS feeds, and generally recharged my creative batteries.

At the same time, I missed the connections, the continual hum of conversation, the discovery of new ideas and new concepts, and the ability to ferret out information for myself.

So it was good to go (especially as nothing fell apart), but it's good to be back.

- Ralph

Day 125 of the WJMA Web Watch. (that's something else that hasn't changed)

What Price Social Media?

Compared to some, I not a big user of social media -- but I want to be, for both personal and professional reasons. Personally, it's a great way to stay in contact with friends and family (well, those on this side of the digital divide, anyway).

Professionally, it's a great way to drive traffic to our company's website, and blog, and podcast, and our Linkedin network, and -- well, you get the idea.

The problem is, though, that we're talking about social media. Which means I've got to be social. If I want traffic to my blogs, I've got to read and comment on other blogs. If I want folks to check out our label's MySpace page, I've got to do the same for theirs. If I want more Twitter followers, I've got to actively follow other Tweeters (is that the right word?).

Don't get me wrong -- it's not that much of a chore. I'm having a blast. But at the same time, especially for the business side of things, I have to balance time and effort invested. After all, Digital Chips, Inc. has a very small staff, and the time I spend being social is time not spent working on projects, or completing paperwork, or doing any of the other million-and-0ne things a small business owner needs to do (beside producing the actual product or service).

So what's the balance? How much time should be spent developing and maintaining social media networks vs. other parts of the job?

I'm still experimenting with the mix, but I don't quite have the answer yet. If anyone has a solutions they'd care to share, please let me know!

- Ralph


Day 170 of the WJMA Web Watch. (I think these guys might be even further behind the curve than we are)

Dial-Up: the Digital Doldrums

We traveled to my wife's family over the Thanksgiving holiday, and for three days I was forced to use a dial-up connection to link to the outside world. It was frustrating and illuminating.

Watching the monitor on my laptop, I saw the incoming data stream start out at about 165 Kbps, then drop to around 40 Kbps, then bottom out at 2 Kbps. After about 10-15 seconds, the cycle would repeat. And of course, it didn't take much to break the connection.

Taking a half an hour to check e-mail was the frustrating part.

But trying to navigate to the various sites I regularly visit or use professionally was illuminating, because I understood why the Internet has so little appeal to a significant part of our population.

At 2 Kbps, even thumbnail images took a significant amount of time to load, which meant that graphic-heavy sites were just not practical to visit. When it can take a couple of minutes per page to open up a news site, then just reading the paper or watching the evening news seem really attractive options.

Even Digg.com, which is mostly text, took a long time to load because (I believe) it's so link-intensive. So too with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. They just took far too long to load and refreshing the pages took a significant amount of time as well.

And of course, any site that used flash animation was difficult to use. I found myself getting increasingly irritated at the sites that make flash part of their navigation, as it significantly added to the page's load time. I usually had to wait about a minute before enough of the page loaded for the navigation tools I needed even appeared.

YouTube was even worse, and at 2 Kbps videos were virtually unwatchable. Even streaming audio was out of the question. So goodbye, Pandora and Internet radio! And also goodbye podcasts -- unless I wanted to leave my laptop connected to the phone line overnight to download new episodes.

In a recent poll, the Pew Charitable Trust asked people who weren't online why they weren't. The answers broke down like this:

• 33 percent say they are not interested.
• 12 percent say they don't have access.
• 9 percent say it is too difficult or frustrating.
• 7 percent say it is too expensive.
• 7 percent say it is a waste of time.

And being on dial-up is just as bad. The long load times made me quickly lose interest in visiting sites. And I soon had no desire to explore the Internet at all. Yes, it was extremely difficult and frustrating. And after two hours online, I felt like I hadn't really done anything at all -- in other words, being online felt like a complete waste of time. So I experienced what about 49% of the people cited as reasons for not being online.

According to Pew, 27% of American adults aren't online at all, while 15% only have dial-up. After this past weekend, I'd say that puts 42% on the wrong side of the digital divide.

- Ralph

Day 164 of the WJMA Web Watch.

The Virtual Body Politic

Someone who only follows the presidential election through mainstream media (primarily TV news) will form an impression radically different than someone who uses the Internet as their primary news source. I've been looking at election coverage both online and off, and sometimes it seems as if I'm reading about events in two parallel universes. And perhaps I am.

The differences have been most striking on the Republican side. Those who follow mainstream news saw Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee battle it out, with John McCain eventually coming up from behind (as of this writing). Rudi Guiliani always seemed like a credible candidate, as did Fred Thompson.

Following the process online yielded a different impression -- especially through sites such as Digg, where the candidates' supporters can raise awareness by submitting and voting for stories to get them to the top of the list.

In the online world, it's all been about Ron Paul. His supporters, in addition to being very vocal, have also been very active. And they've had to be. Mainstream media often ignored Paul. His supporters continually post documentation of deliberate marginalization, both among reporters and the Republican party itself.

Ron Paul leads the pack in terms of MySpace and Facebook friends, as well as the Digg the Candidates site. None of the other Republican candidates come close to Paul. Guiliani and Thompson were always at the bottom of the heap.

On the Democratic side, the mainstream media has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a dead heat. Online, it's no contest -- it's Obama by a wide margin. He has ten times the friends on Digg, and wide leads over Clinton on Facebook and MySpace.

Obama is the candidate that "gets' the Internet. He supported net neutrality, which made him hugely popular with the online community. The announcement went almost unreported in the mainstream media -- which is hardly surprising as they have yet to really report on the issue of net neutrality itself. The average person watching TV news has never heard of one of the Internet's major hot button issues.

Of course, what matters are votes. If Ron Paul is so popular (according to the web), then why isn't he leading in delegates? If Obama's the clear choice online, then why hasn't he put this contest away?

I think it's because 50% of the people still live on the other side of the digital divide. And a good many of those on this side use the Internet only to forward ancient jokes and urban myths to their friends -- not as a source of information.

And therein lies the difficulty. While the Internet has made the political process transparent in many ways and leveled the playing field for the candidates, this has only come to pass online. There's been little spillover into the non-digital world.

To get out the vote, campaigners still have to connect with the electorate. In the real world. Face to face. Not just pixel to pixel. Can these new political bases rising online make the transition? This will be an interesting election.

- Ralph

Transparent Change

Although there were many factors that affected the recent election, to me a big part was the use of new media. Barak Obama seemed to have an instinctive understanding of how the Internet was used and played it like a fiddle. John McCain, as perhaps befitting members of his generation, seemed to discount the role of new media and preferred tried and true political strategies. I think when he talked about his computer ignorance, I think he was reassuring his base that he wasn't caught up in any of that Interwebtubbie nonsense.

I'm not saying he's perfect in every way, but to me, Obama seemed to "get" the increasingly important role the Internet -- and social networking -- is going to play in our 21st Century world. And it wasn't just for the campaign, either. Today a new website appeared -- Change.gov.

It's the website for the Obama transition. There are news updates, a blog to subscribe to, and a ton of information. We can watch the transition team take shape, and monitor the entire process. And there's a social media aspect as well. You can share a story about what the campaign meant for you. And you can share your vision about the changes you'd like to see.

You can also dig into the details of Obama's agenda on a variety of topics. If nothing else, Obama seems to has kept his promise of government transparency. (We'll know more once all of those stories/visions the nation shares are made public.)

Personally, I'm very excited about the Technology agenda. For the most part, it's in line with the changes many of us on this side of the digital divide have been clamoring for. I am concerned about one thing, though.

Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that in 2005, more than nine of every 10 DVDs sold in China were illegal copies. The U.S. Trade Representative said 80 percent of all counterfeit products seized at U.S. borders still come from China. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere.

Relying on the MPAA (and the RIAA) for guidance on copyright issues usually, ends badly for all concerned -- including the industries these organizations are trying to protect. Looks like it's time to share my own vision with the new administration...

- Ralph

Day 140 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Virtual Reality Check

The Pew Internet and American Life Project recently completed a survey on technology use -- with some very interesting results. 49% of those surveyed had no use for technology. Some don't because they can't afford to, some because they're too old to adapt. But then there are some that actually uses cellphones, Internet connections, etc., but only gudgingly.

Let's ponder that for a second. The knowledge available on the Internet, the discussions in blogs and forums, podcasts, streaming videos, late-breaking news, citizen-journalism -- almost half the population doesn't know about it, and/or doesn't care.

According to the survey, there aren't two monolithic blocks of haves and have-nots glaring at each other across the digital divide (I've talked about this before). There are subgroups who accept or reject technology in varying degrees.

Check out the report, and take the survey's quiz to see where you fall in the spectrum (I'm a Connector). And as we continue to read, and explore and converse over the Internet, it will be helpful to remember those who don't -- by choice.

- Ralph

Twitter Haters (Twaters) Unite!

Well, it's official. The Twitter phenomenon is over. I've been inundated all afternoon with copies of the new Nielsen study that showed problems with Twitter's "stickiness." According to David Martin, Nielsen Online's vice president for primary research:

"more than 60 percent of Twitter users fail to return the following month. Or in other words, Twitter's audience retention rate, or the percentage of a given month's users who come back the following month, is currently about 40 percent."

One post said, "Twitter is a white hot star....it's pretty hollow inside." Another compared it to the CB radio craze. The funny thing is, we've been here before -- and will probably be here again
Everyone who thinks Twitter is pointless is gleefully sharing this article -- those that can use e-mail, that is.

And that's really the point. If you're on the wrong side of the digital divide, it can be almost impossible to comprehend the value of this or any other Internet application.
Let's take a step back in time to when e-mail was new. What good is e-mail? If you only get spam or forwarded stupid jokes, then it isn't worth much. And you can't e-mail someone who doesn't have an account -- but you could call them, or even send a real letter. So why bother with it?
Because it's a useful business tool. Because archived e-mails are easier to search than paper documents. Because it's more economical than snail mail. Because it's faster than snail mail. And so on.

And yet we all know people who still have little or no use for e-mail. Even if they have accounts, they're seldom used. And if these folks really have to use it -- well, they sometimes need a little help. (How many company decision makers still rely on their assistants to handle the Interwebtubbie stuff?)

And Twitter's basically the same. Like e-mail, it's what you make of it. There's plenty of nothing being said on Twitter, but there are things of value going on, too. Businesses are using it to communicate with customers. Performing artists are using it to connect with fans. News organizations are using it for headline news feeds. And so on.

So all those Oprah fans who joined because she said to, looked at it, scratched their heads and then closed their accounts, don't matter much (in my opinion). If Oprah had told them to all buy Yankee screwdrivers they would have, and then placed the tools in closets or drawers where they would sit unused.

Because that's what Twitter is -- a communications tool. Like the Yankee screwdriver, it doesn't do all things equally well. But if you're a woodworker or fine furniture maker, there are times when no other type of screwdriver will do. And if you're running an Internet-oriented business, there are times when Twitter is ideal.

And is Twitter like CB Radio? Well, that was originally a communications tool also. Sure, it got to be a big fad in the late 1970's, and the on-air chatter eventually killed its effectiveness for professional truckers. But the concept's still around -- truckers now use cell phones for two-way communications, which filters out all that over-the-air noise.

Ditto with Twitter. You don't have to get updates from everyone in the world. Just the people (or businesses) you're interested in. That communications band can be as tightly focused as you want it to be.

Doesn't bother me that people are coming and leaving. I didn't follow them anyway (I suspect few did). I can talk to professional colleagues, post notices for upcoming business events, and do a little crowd-sourcing when necessary.

So please, twaters, stop with the article forwarding. I got it already. And what I really got is how much you don't get it.
- Ralph

Day 25 of the WJMA Podwatch. (No, they don't Twitter either.)

The Silent Minority

The Silent Minority

Two seemingly unrelated facts:

1.4 million Americans who have a computer in their homes refuse to get Internet access because they are not interested in anything on the Internet.

I’m the only person in my house willing to watch a silent movie.

Park Associates released a study of Internet usage. As with any study, parts have been pulled out of context and used for eye-catching headlines in the national news media – I encourage you to read Park’s press release for yourself and see the actual figures and their interpretation of them for yourself.

Over a million Americans who own a computer own a computer are not interested in anything on the Internet. To me, that’s the epitome of being uncurious. There’s nothing of interest on the net? Nothing at all? Considering the scope and breadth of the web, that seems unlikely – but realizing the full value of this resource is very difficult to explain. It really has to be experienced to begin to make sense.

As exciting and wonderful as the web appears on this side of the digital divide, there are those who will not cross over even though they can. They’re not just uncurious – they like it that way.

Which leads me to point two. I’m the only person in my household who enjoys silent films. In fact, a sure way to clear the room is to put one in the player.

Why the strong reaction? Acting in silent films relies on stylized body language to communicate emotion. Makeup is different as well, designed to make the face more expressive and readable rather than realistic. To watch a silent film, you have to shift your expectations a bit (but not lower them). It’s a little different than watching a modern film, but not tremendously so.

But that difference is the deal-breaker at our house. It requires the viewer to stretch in an unusual direction, and that’s where my family draws the line. I think the same may be true for those 1.4 million Americans. The net can be wild and wonderful, but it’s also big and messy and pulls you into new ways of reading and processing information. Whether its cinema or cyberspace, people are only willing to travel but so far outside their comfort zone.

And more’s the pity, because that’s where the really interesting things are happening.

- Ralph

Going off the grid -- the personal cost

Yesterday I talked about going off the grid. So what does no Internet access mean personally?

Well, to me it means being cut off from friends and family. Sure, I have my cell phone, but it's not the same. The updates I receive from social media sites like Twitter are a passive and simple way to keep in touch without conversation. The Twitter feed gives me brief snapshots of how everyone's going through their day, providing quick insights and -- through links -- interesting and informative information to further explore.

I'm not much of a Facebook person, but there will be posts that will go unanswered for the next few days. Of course, I won't know about them, so it won't be too bad. Sometimes it's good to just step away from the monitor.

Personal e-mails will go unanswered, but that's OK. Professional e-mails get responded to within 24 hours. Personal ones usually aren't that time sensitive anyway.

Our motel room has broadcast TV access only -- no cable. I won't be able to check the BBC like I'm used to for news, nor visit any of the other online news sources that keep me up to date. I'll have to rely on whatever the Fox43 news team chooses to show me, and the Intelligencer Journal decides to print. That's not too bad -- it gives me insight on what folks across the digital divide experience everyday.

And on the plus side, Dad and I will have a lot of quality time without interruption. And that's what I value most about these trips. I've heard family stories I've never heard before, gained some insight into Dad's life, and what events shaped his personality. And we've had a lot of conversations that, quite frankly, don't lend themselves to 140-character posts.

- Ralph

Day 121 of the WJMA Web Watch.

The Digital Experiential Divide

I've recently joined Twitter -- but this post isn't about that. Rather, it's about what happened after I joined, and the implications for others trying to move their businesses online.

If you're not familiar with Twitter, check out this video by Common Craft. As always, they do a superb job of clearly -- and simply -- explaining the basic concept.



And that's the crux of this post -- explaining basic concepts. These days it's not too difficult for most people to understand what a website is and why a business needs one (well, perhaps with one exception). And that's because most people have had experience with websites.

But many times the usefulness of a web-based application can't adequately be explained to someone who hasn't tried. But most people (especially business decision-makers) aren't going to try something unless they know what the benefit is.

How can you convey the concept of what these things are to someone with no frame of reference? Is a blog like a newsletter? A podcast like a radio show? Well, kind of, but not really.

I'm using Twitter both as a way to expand my social network and as a way for DCD Records to reach people. But when folks ask me what's new, I can't really tell them. Even some of my fairly Internet-savvy colleagues don't understand what Twitter is and why I'm there.

I've talked before about digital subdivisions. There's the big one among people who are online and those that aren't. And there's another one between people who actively use the Internet for many things and those that use it occasionally for forward e-mail jokes and visiting a few websites.

It seems to me there's a further subdivision among the active Internet users. There's those that follow the well-trod paths (visiting websites, using email) and those that are exploring the new services the web offers. And the problem is that the benefits of these new services are only apparent to those who try them.

But if your business depends on Internet traffic in a substantial way, then it might be a good idea to experiment a little. Not all of these new services are a good match for every business, but, hey. It's where the action is.

I'd be more specific, but well, you had to be there.

- Ralph

Day 40 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Fair and balanced -- our bottom five posts

In our last post we took stock of where we were after 10,000 views, and ran down our five most popular posts. Here's the five least popular posts, in descending order. Why list them? Well, hopefully to give these entries another chance.

5) ...there's Apple TV -- The iPhone's continues to get all the press, but I still think Apple TV has the potential to be the more important release.

4) Format fallout -- The final installment of my commentary on the WGMS/WETA nightmare. Let's all hope the story's over, but there's an outside chance we'll be revisiting this sometime in the future.

3) Digital Syllogism -- There's still a lot of folks with expensive flat-panel TVs who think they're watching HDTV, but they're not. I tried.

2) The Digital Dogma Divide -- Strangly, the follow-up post where I provided a real-world example of my premise garnered more views.

And the absolute least read post so far:

1) Return of the Marching Memes -- OK, so no one's interested in our little musical challenge. We'll try something else.

And, yes, all five at the bottom are mine. Ken doesn't post as often, but he did take home the prizes this time. Quality wins over quantity again!

- Ralph

The Digital Dogma Divide

A lot of virtual ink continues to be spilled about the merger of XM Satellite Radio and SIRIUS Satellite Radio. As the commentary flies fast and furious, I'm taking a step back and looking at the subtext of the discussion -- particularly as it applies to satellite radio vs. HD Radio.

In the comment fields for reviews about satellite radio products, HD Radio tuners, op-ed pieces about radio and so on, the same arguments roll back and forth again and again. Satellite radio supporters talk about the richness of the content, and the (for the most part) lack of commercials. HD Radio supporters talk about how over-the-air broadcasts are free, and the presence of commericals on some satellite radio channels.

It's not really a conversation, as neither side engages the other. Not surprising, as they're talking at cross purposes. For some folks, content is important -- important enough to pay for. For others, content isn't important at all -- nice if its there, not really missed if it isn't.

Some gladly pay extra for HBO and Showtime because they believe the original programs ("Sopranos," "Deadwood," etc.) are worth the cost. Other are quite happy with the basic channels -- what programs they actually watch don't matter as much.

The same is true with music. I'm passionate about classical music, and really relish works that require active listening. Many prefer their classical music to sit politely in the corner and sounds pretty -- like Muzak. Books, movies, plays, art -- there's always a divide between those who consider them important, and those who don't.

If you consider content important enough to pay for, then settling for poor selection isn't an option. If you're indifferent to the content, then paying extra for it makes little sense.

XM/Sirius vs. HD Radio. The argument rages on, with both sides citing features that are valueless to the other, the underlying premises remaining unarticulated.

- Ralph

Going off the grid -- the professional cost

So now that I'm off the grid for the rest of the week, the big question is how do I run my (mostly) virtual business? Digital Chips, Inc., and its record label, DCD Records has a lot of balls in the air right now -- and they're all flying around online.

We have some CD compilations we're working on for various clients -- and I'm expected some clearances via e-mail to come in before the weekend. In addition to the online store on the DCD Records site, we also maintain a store on Amazon.com, GEMM.com, and distribute to Arkivmusic.com. It's my job to process those orders when they come in so they can be picked and shipped -- orders that arrive over the Internet.

I'm also trying to maintain our company's presence by posts to Twitter, LinkedIn and MySpace. And that's all done online. So what happens when my motel room doesn't even have a phone (and no cell phone reception)?

Basically, I'm going to rely on my business partner. Normally we divide up the various tasks involved with the company. My partner's strengths and skill sets aren't the same as mine, and he'll have to step into ongoing projects without a lot of background. I'll talk him through it, of course.

But he'll have to check e-mail regularly, and then we'll have to decide what needs a response and what can wait. And if there's a response, well, he'll have to make it.

I know there was a time when out-of-town business was normally conducted this way, but I'm used to carrying my office around in the form of a laptop. It may get a little stressful before it's all over.

But then I think of the Amish, who are everywhere up here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Many people think they shun technology, but that's not quite right. The Amish just prefer to keep technology at arm's length.

They'll turn on an electric generator for a specific job, and once its done they'll turn it off. The Amish control their devices -- not the other way around.

And there's something to be said for that.

- Ralph

Day 122 of the WJMA Web Watch.