The Professor's Notes

I am once again about to talk at a conference about Twitter.  In this instance, I am asked to sit on a panel and discuss Twitter in the context of “Social Media an Exploration of its impact on Both the IMC ^{Context and Content” Please, read and share your feedback.}

========================

Twitter has proven itself to be an amazingly useful tool.  Remarkable considering it was only introduced at SXSW in 2007.  We have seen Twitter move from a discussion about “what I had for lunch”, into a tool used by people daily to find topics of interest to them usually because their friends view them to be interesting as well.  And recently-well, we have seen Twitter used as a tool for social and political change.

This is what’s most interesting about twitter.  Twitter is not one thing.  It’s not even a couple of things.  Twitter is an amorphic tool, that is shaped by the way each and every user will use that tool.  Individuals use twitter to share information or thoughts for the day.  Corporations use twitter to monitor what people are saying about their product and in the case of Comcast stepping in and fixing problems customers are having.  Some corporations are even using twitter as a marketing tool offering free products through drawings.  Many even blend twitter with face book to create a more socially aware, new media presence.

Herein lies the challenge: there is no quote user end quote of twitter.  There is no specific use case of twitter.  Where many predicted the death of twitter once britney spears and Ashton kutcher arrived we have seen twitter continue to thrive and grow.  What these doomsayers failed to understand is that while the arrival of these celebreties to Twitter may have removed them from the “most followed” ranks of Twitter, people were not forced to follow these people.

The magic of twitter is that we choose the people we follow.  We can even block the people we wish to have not follow us (sort of).  We create our own tribes as Seth Godin would say.  I personally have several tribes if you will that I view as my friends, or people I follow, on Twitter.

Here are my tribes:

1. Educators
2. Real people who use technology
3. Supply chain people
4. Family and friends
5. People who discuss politics (on all sides of an issue)

So what lessons can we take from this as marketing people looking at twitter?  I think you can walk away from twitter knowing that everyone there are seeks information that is of value to them.  Not everyone uses twitter in the same way, but everyone is there to gain value for themselves.  For some the value comes in being able to share information they have, while for others the value is simply seeing what people they respect are thinking on specific topics.  These range from political viewpoints, to the latest cool tech application, to experiences as a diabetic or even sharing a favorite restaurant.  We need to find the value that we provide to those who want to follow us.  What would make someone want to follow me on twitter, and how can I deliver that to them?

So as we step forward I suggest we keep in mind my following “main points of twitter”:

1. People follow you on twitter-so while it is transmit not everyone will receive
2. People follow you because you do or say something of interest.  Stay on topic!
3. Provide value in your tweets.  Give information, insights, links, or all of the above.
4. The twitter stream is just that-and it flows past people.  Don’t expect them to see everything you say
5. You can reach people that are not following you when engaging in popular topics.  Watch the hash tags.
6. Don’t hijack a hash tag!  Be relevant.

My podcast co-host, Tony Pittman (@tonypittman), shared a link with me.^{Butch Davis bans Twitter at UNC.” Reading further, I learned that:}

…players are forbidden from using the popular microblogging service.

The decision follows at least two instances where players were told to take down Twitter posts.²

My first reaction was “Wow!  Banning the use of a personal tool, on a personal phone or computer–that seems a bit Draconian!”  Then I started wondering what I would suggest instead.  After a little thought (very little) I decided this–he should take the same approach that I have had with my children. Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday my brother posted a tweet, acknowledging that he is on 35 lists on Twitter.^{Crowdsourcing” and the “The Wisdom of Crowds.”}

As I understand it, Twitter added “lists” because people wanted a simple way of grouping the people they follow according to some sort of structure that made sense to them.  Tweetdeck had added that capability through “groups” and I had even started using that feature.  I had built groups based on my major categories of interest:  Family. Close (real) friends.  Local people. Educators.  Twitter took that idea, allowed us to create lists through them, and then also offered the option to make the lists “public” and subscribe-able.  People can see your public lists, and if they like them–follow them!

Once Twitter released that option I had actually abandoned the notion of groups and lists.  I wasn’t so sure about what I wanted to use them for anyway.  I have since gone back, adding a private list of just family and friends.

So here is what I am wondering as I peruse the 35 lists that have listed my brother, and the lists that have added me:

Are they all really that different?  And if not, are they a “waste” of time?

In my lists, I see I am listed on a number of Supply Chain Management lists.  And educator lists.  My brother’s lists are understandably predominantly discipline related, and education related.  There are a few others, but those dominate–and that’s the point.  There appears, on a curory look, to be significant overlap on these lists.

The concept of “Wisdom of the Crowds” and “Crowd-sourcing” is that crowds, when gathered together, make better decisions, and are more creative.  Potentially (and grossly oversimplified).   By building lists of people that share common interests we can see the views of others who are thinking about the same things, and get a wide range of perspectives. ²

So here are the “research questions” (or “investigative questions”) that I have:

1.  How many groups have identical or very similar themes? (Like “supply Chain Managers”)

2.  On similar lists, what is the membership overlap?

3.  How much time is spent developing these similar, and perhaps redundant, lists?

4.  Is there a better way to “share” lists, so people aren’t always reinventing the lists (and taking time to do that?)

5.  Is there some psychological need that gets filled by creating one’s own lists, rather than following someone else’s list?  Control? Ownership?

The tide of opinion seems to have shifted against Facebook, and there is a growing movement to “Leave” facebook.  Alas, many of us are finding it hard to leave Facebook.

What to do?

How about this–build your own community!  The tools are already here–we just need to come up with a coordinated way to share.

Let’s start with Twitter as the “hub.”  You can use Twitter to keep in touch, and follow your friends.  Of course, it is important to note that your public tweets are just that.  PUBLIC.¹  So what to do?  First, watch what you say (always good advice.)  Second, if you want to add an extra layer of privacy just create a “Blocked” account, and only allow your followers to see what you post. So you can share with your friends what you are doing, and they can share with you.  And let’s not forget the direct, one-on-one messages you can share, or “DMs.”

But that’s just the start.  Do you like sharing your photographs?  Flickr is a much better site for photo storage and sharing anyway. It’s the purpose of Flickr. And in Flickr you can create or join photo groups that are focused on things that interest you, ranging from entertainment groups you might have been in, to people sharing the same interests in photographic subjects or cameras.  In addition, you can make your photos public and visible to everyone, or just to friends, or for family.  You can control the access to your photographs and even control who can download the image or reuse it. On top of all of that, you can even choose to make your photo available to photo services to use and pay you for the use! If you haven’t checked out Flickr, you really should.

And when you add a photo to flickr, and want the world to know about it–tell them on Twitter!

Now maybe you want to share videos.  There are many sites for doing that, as well.  Certainly YouTube is the most well known but Vimeo is making a strong showing as well.  Again, you can share your videos publicly, or share only with friends.  (And Flickr also now supports limited videos, as well!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  These three sites (Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube) really address the majority of how people use Facebook–to connect, share conversation, share photos, and share videos.  Why turn over control to Facebook, when you can “roll your own?”

So let us know–how else do you use Facebook, and what other community tools do YOU know that could help wean ourselves off Facebook?

And let’s start with Twitter.  You can find me there as @scmprofessor

In a recent blog post, Stevie Rocco wrote that “Professor X is a scribe.”  She wrote that as part of a larger conversation which grew from a critique of Cole Camplese’s presentation at the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Tech Forum and his defense, and I encourage you all to go read the post.

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen‘s book “youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

Last month, Jason Calacanis (entrepreneur, and most recently founder of Mahalo) wrote in his newsletter about how he was willing to pay twitter for exposure, and he then asked his readers three questions.  I chose then to reply to him and, after waiting a respectable amount of time, have chosen to repost segments of my response here.

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

@LeoLaporte and others frequently mention that they think Twitter has (or will, or might) “Jump the Shark.”

Usually they point to the entry of celebrities to the Twitterverse as the beginning of the demise.  For a while, @theRealDvorak predicted that Britney Spears would bring down Twitter.  Then it was other “stars.”

Well, some of this is true.  The massive number of followers that Leo and Dvorak have are dwarfed by Obama’s twitter following. As well as the numbers put up by other greats like @bobbyllew and @brentSpiner (again, my two favorite TV androids–just WHY Google hasn’t contacted them to sell their G1 I don’t know.)  Twitter left the hands of the “Techies” and became mainstream.  Somehow, this is what would make it “jump the shark.”

I  have to respectfully disagree.

What makes twitter “work” is that while many will follow what I will call “vanity twitterers” twitter has as its heart, its soul, the development of personal communities and networks.  One connects with people that have interests in common.

For me, I have really three distinct “twitter” communities.  I am a Supply Chain guy, and want to connect with other professionals in that arena (it’s why my twitter name is @SCMProfessor).  I am also a professor (another part of that name) and so I am interested in connecting with educators, especially those that are innovative and using technology in helping people learn and understand the world around them. Like @ChrisChampion, @MisterLamb and @Dsalvucci.  I also like connecting with “real people” living real lives. Much of that comes from getting to know those in the first two groups.  Some is connecting with people I already knew, and some simply comes from finding other areas of interest where we intersect (location, politics, food, and so forth.)

Twitter’s ability to connect small pockets of people from around the globe, and allow us to develop digital relationships, is what keeps Twitter moving forward.  Sure, we may follow some “vanity twitterers” but that is like watching “Entertainment Tonight.”  It’s a fun diversion.

Relationships are what moves us forward–and relationships are what powers Twitter.

In my previous post I wrote about some of my thoughts concerning three key points that I drew from Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur”.

I wanted to take a few minutes to write about ways to address the challenges of these three points.

I have commented on twitter (@SCMProfessor) that I don’t like the push to be “followed” but not to follow back.  Leo LaPorte, and many others, talk in their podcasts about how many people follow them, and either in jest or with serious intent, talk about wanting more followers.  There I find myself usually asking “why?”

Of course, people like Barack Obama, @LeoLaPorte, and my two personal favorites @BrentSpiner  and @bobbyll (two of the best TV androids around!) serve a role as thought leaders.  But what about the rest of  us? Should we want to be folllowed by millions and not follow back?

I admit, I enjoy watching the following numbers go up.  It is in some sense a boost to the ego.  But I also feel it is important to follow back.  If we are to be part of a “community” then that community should encourage discourse and exchange.  We should want to follow the people that follow us, so that we can learn from them.  @TheRealDvorak (John C Dvorak) actually was doing this.  He would follow back.  He would engage.  Of course, leading the way in following back is Scoble (@thescobleizer) who follows 70K people, and is followed by 65K.  He engages!

Here’s my suggestions for engagement on Twitter. Read the rest of this entry »