connecting*the*dots

The day that AOL/Netscape reduces their decade-long focus on squeezing profits from dial-up deals with web newbies long enough to compete with a niche, early adopter site like Digg, is the day that online, participatory communities will have reached the ROI tipping point.

Eh-hem! That day is here.

Michael Arrington frames the move nicely:

[…]

The fact that AOL is launching the new service under the Netscape brand instead of building out a new property says how serious they are about the space. According to statistics provided by AOL, Netscape serves a whopping 811 million monthly page views - far more than Digg today.

Putting this kind of audience in front of a Digg like service could spell trouble for many sites that ultimately make it to the top of the site. A Digg or Slashdot story can send tens of thousands of visitors to a site in a matter of minutes or hours. With Netscape, this effect could be many times larger - possibly resulting in outages at sites headlining the new service.

There are a number of other notable features of the new Netscape. Story submissions can be tagged by the submitter along for easier search in the future. Every category, user and group of friends has their own RSS feed. Also, category anchors will follow up on many stories and post their own editorial content on those stories (see below)

With all of the recent moves, one has to be wondering where the participatory news space is heading:

• Newsvine is already an “all category” user-generated article space
• Digg is rumored to be expanding from a niche site to an all-encompassing domain
• Netscape is launching a full-force, broadly targeted, participatory interface into the mix

At first glance, the long-term benefits of this growing industry and competition seem to land in the laps of the end user.

In the real world, industry competition drives quality standards while the invisible hand of the market usually corrects pricing issues (except for oil and other lobbied industries, but that’s a whole other article).

If you follow similar logic within this segment of the internet economy, the domain with the most intoxicating experience design and participatory incentive programs should retain the largest share of the participatory market (and I’m not talking about the bread and circus returns of shiny AJAX widgets and karma points).

Interfaces that are primarily designed for an optimized, ad sales, click-through scheme and not unique, behavioral, user experiences, just won’t survive in the long-run. Domain competition will force top notch user-centered interaction design, reducing opportunities to implement old school, bean counting advertising schemes to piggy-back user behavior.

Even more disruptive; in order to increase sign-ups, retain customers and increase degrees of participation, one would think that revenue generated from these new user-centered, advertising paradigms will have to be efficiently shared with this new workforce of virtual attention laborors.

While it’s true that these particular industry domains are already branding the very idea of 2.0 community — essentially “soft-locking” people into committing to a domain as with neighborhoods — without certain concessions (such as revenue sharing) I’d imagine that tactic alone to be short-sighted. I mean, wouldn’t corporate abuse of our participatory nature by these enabling domains drive us to be quick to change our attachment to these particular 2.0 communities?

I have to profess, this is where my faith in the many falters.

Honestly, my “fear” is that the masses of early-adoptor geeks who are driving the emergence of this participatory economy are just as self-centered as the capitalistic drivers of the attention economy itself.

Let me rephrase and explain my thoughts more clearly.

Are we more interested in participating as authentic medic creators and information contextualizers from afar, while being left alone to receive our timely, customized, community-centered, topical information? Or do we believe in standing together as a workforce of developers of this information revolution and as personal, information contextualizers to create change in our overarching financial system itself, ensuring a greater diversity of fiscal opportunities for people living on the other side of numerous socio-economic divides?

This is where the rubber hits the road, just before the fork.

We Don’t Have To Follow The Same Path We Used To Get Here

Big business is just beginning to view participatory systems as an obvious line extension of the profit vehicles that mass production provided in the industrial age through financial capitalism. If you understand the underlying principals of the first go-around, the evolutionary patterns of the second pass make themselves quite obvious:

• In the 20th century, capitalists leveraged cookie-cutter product design, simplified mass production assembly lines, ensured low-wage labor systems and implemented hardcore, mass marketing and psychological advertising within an imbedded entertainment mass media to drive product consumption
• In the 21st century, capitalists have the advent of collaborative filtering and personalized interfaces, running on the movement, interactions and contextualization of data and perspectives of the people who use them, driving contextualized ad placement, resulting in both revenue and product consumption with much less overhead

VC’s drool over the possibilities of the attention economy, because they see exactly how to take advantage of the situation, turning passionate information junkies and connectors into ad sales generators, which is fine, because it’s in their nature.

(photo by illmatic)

The question I desperately want to ask “the masses” is do we, the designers, the developers, the content creators and authentic media generators, care about this pure, capitalistic leeching or is it truely in our nature to provide a free ride, no matter the potential for being used as residual generators of capital?

For if we do care, we — the schitzophrenic creators and consumers of this new economy — are in a unique position to take a slice of the proverbial pie, whether through better positioning in a buyer’s market or as compensated content creators in a participatory, user-generated, contextualized media system. Either way, we can completely alter the model of managed capitalism and move one-step closer to to realizing Doc Searls’ intention economy.

Let the capitalists finance the infrastructure and reap their fair, residual returns, but let the people drive the costs of the market based on our desires while sharing in the residual profits that we generate via digital forms of word of mouth advertising.

In today’s parameter-passing, unique-identifier, permalink world, both notions are completely feasible. The only question is whether or not they will take this revolutionary change lying down.

Brought to you from that cutting-edge crew over at Current TV. You know, that little ol’ venture from Al Gore.

Big business is already squirming regarding citizen media; they’re going to have a heart attack if this experiment takes off. I don’t make predictions often, but the day it’s the norm for companies to dive into blogging as a means to communicate with their market, citizen advertizing will take off like wildfire.

The value proposition for large companies is too high to ignore hundreds, possibly thousands of passionate, creative consumers. Aside from the media buy component of a 50 million dollar campaign (in non-Current TV channels), the remainder of the creative and production costs could be replaced by a hundred $1,000 checks.

But forget huge corporations for a minute; imagine the value proposition for small businesses. The saturation of message and community will be beyond enticing; it’ll be intoxicating.

Man, the elites must really hate Web/Media 2.0 now.

Designers are held to such a double-standard, especially designers of the interactive media.

The stereotype of a designer is that he or she is, more likely than not, self-referential with their work. Business cringes when faced with the prospect of bringing in a new designer to a product team, as visions of a self-glorified, controlling, pompous designer wandering the halls, makes business and technology folks toss and turn in bed at night. I mean, come on, all designers are "shiny-shiny" types, looking for that Golden Pencil or Webby Award, right?

Business folks talk about wanting designers who have a rationale before, say, changing the paradigm of interface behavioral patterns or suggesting a different approach to the usefulness of the experience in the first place. Business wants a designer who has a process which substantiates their output; a smart, talented, non self-referential designer, able to take their domain (the business) into account when designing interfaces.

Okay. Fair enough.

So designers expose their craft, expose their thought processes, expose their methodologies to businesses and product teams in order to show that they get it. Seasoned designers are able to have a conversation about a business model; they can talk shop with engineers; they can subjugate their own system design preferences in order to understand the needs of the end user and the possibilities that lie beyond the present implementation model. The aforementioned approaches aren’t options to the craft; these are the multi-disciplinary skill sets required for the role.

Well, in steps technology with skin in the game to spare. “Innovation comes from rapid iterations of features” they say. “Okay” the designer adds, “Let’s just make sure we’re focusing on the right features, useful to people.” Instantly, product management begins to cringe, project managers start to steel up, cats sleep with dogs, etc.

Remember that the intent of crafting an interface is to create a representational model that reflects, as close as possible, the end user’s mental model regarding the goal and tasks at hand, not as an implementation model of the existing technology. So why is this method of getting to the interface so scary? Why is it so terrible to actually talk to “outside” people about product concepts? Designers create user archetype(s) and scenarios to represent the potential user base and their needs and desires in a product. If the synthesized findings confirm internal product vision, they can then be translated by the design team to craft interface behavior. This is how refined, holistic user interfaces are created across a single product, an entire domain and even into external product and brand communication. This is a cross-team, collaborative process which may or may not fine-tune the product offering, but definitely will improve the behavior of the user interface.

So is the hesitation from the fear of leaks to competition? There are ways to perform research without letting on who you are and even the concept of the actual product. And it can be done rather quickly. Or does the hesitation stem from a more human place; personal competition and the perceived loss of skin in the game?

If my non-designer colleagues in this field believe that user experience design begins and ends at the interface level, where it gets pretty, then I guess I understand the hesitation to leverage our methods. Maybe us design types should “just get drunk and throw paint on the canvas.”

Personally, I’m going to stick to my seltzer and keep asking questions.