As a TEDster, the emergence of the TEDx events gives us the opportunity to share the TED experience with our friends, colleagues and interest groups in a smaller, more intimate, less big bang (and definitely less expensive) setting.

At acidlabs we’re incredibly proud to announce that TED has granted us the right to host the very first TEDxCanberra!

This is big news for us, and we’re hard at work (it’s not like we weren’t already busy) in the early stages of pulling the event together.

Our aim is to attract enough support to ensure that TEDxCanberra is free, or as close to free as we can make it. To do this, we’re going to need a small army of volunteers to help us make it happen. If you’re interested in helping out – time, sponsorship, in kind assistance your business or organisation can give – we’d love you to get in touch.

TEDxCanberra will be held on Saturday 23 October 2010. Follow along at the TEDx web site to make sure you hear all the news.

Related posts

• trib’s big TED Adventure (2)
• Thinking about inspiration (1)
• TED Session 5 – Understand (2)
• TED Session 4 – See (1)
• TED Session 3 – Reconnect (2)

By now, many of you will have seen the ReadWriteWeb confused as Facebook saga.

It’s an object lesson in the capabilities and expectations of everyday web use. And it’s one that we who make our livings by purporting to understand people and the way they use the web and other technology ought to be both abundantly aware of and keep frequently in mind.

Most people using the web aren’t especially technically capable. They don’t understand the difference between the search box and address box on the browser they’re using (one of the smartest people I know constantly frustrates me by using the search box to go to sites and declares it “easier” as I vent). They don’t know what a URL is nor how it works. Nor do they even understand what a browser is. Let alone that the web isn’t the Internet.

I used to be very much in the “well, they just have to learn” camp. These days, I’m very much the opposite.

As experience designers (or whatever we’re called these days), it’s very much our job to design to the capabilities of the people using the things we help build. At the same time, we should seek to educate them just a little bit, incrementally building their skills through our designs.

Most people using the web are not us. It’s our job to build to their skills, needs, mental models and expectations not their job to meet ours.

For us to expect the people using the things we build to have the desire to learn technical things like URL manipulation, or that Google, Facebook, or whatever their favorite site isn’t the web itself is a pretty selfish notion. This is all actually Communications 101. We speak to and can expect understanding from those we communicate with only when we communicate with them on their terms in their language. To expect anything else is distinctly inward focussed and will not result in the best possible experience for them.

Over at his blog, UI and US, my friend Keith Lang has written yet another useful piece of thinking on this issue. I recommend you read it.

Related posts

• Work (0)
• Who are the people in your neighborhood – redux (1)
• User-centered music? (0)
• Transitions (4)
• The Rules… Or not so much (2)

When you’re given just 20 minutes to cover the notion of the more open business models the proliferation of social networks encourage, there’s not a great deal of time to waffle. Hopefully I didn’t the other day, when I gave this talk to close off the speaker sessions at the Technology to Drive Growth workshop at the National Growth Summit conference in Sydney.

Today’s business world suffers many problems, many of them seemingly intractable through their complexity and frequently changing scope. These problems now have a name, wicked problems.

A 2008 survey by Neutron Group and Stanford University asked 1500 executives to cite the most complex of the wicked problems they faced. Looking at just the third:

Innovating at the increasing speed of change

we can see that change is a big issue.

The increasing pervasiveness of access to the Internet and the empowerment that access places in the hands of the stakeholders of a business – staff, executives, stakeholders and especially customers – makes business innovation a key differentiator today. If we go online to look for a new fridge, or computer, or flowers for Valentine’s Day, or a holiday, there’s so much on offer that we need a better way of making a choice. Often, we’ll choose the most innovative provider of that service or product.

But what do I mean by innovative? A few year back, everyone was defining this in terms of Seth Godin’s Purple Cow. I think that’s a good starting point. We do want remarkable products. But flowers are flowers, right? A fridge is a fridge? A book from Amazon is the same as the book from Borders. So it’s rarely the product itself that’s the differentiating point.

The differentiation point is, in part, reputation and customer focus. Which provider do my trusted, expert friends recommend. What is it about the provider that they recommend? Is it incredible customer service? Is it the little touches like chocolate mints in amongst my hardware orders (like one online store I shop at does)? Is it that they put a human face on an otherwise faceless company?

Let’s focus on the last of those points, because it goes very directly to the point of one of my favorite books, The Cluetrain Manifesto, and to the heart of what I’m talking about.

While Cluetrain presents us with a comprehensively argued 95 theses for better, more human business, I want to focus on just the first. Markets are conversations.

Anyone whose ever been to a fresh produce market in Australia, or open air markets anywhere in the world will understand this completely. Things get done in business in these situations because people talk to each other and act in a human way.

Market segmentation, one of the favorite tools of businesses over a certain size, divides their potential customer base into demographics they can then target their sales and marketing efforts at. I’d argue that while you might want to do this to understand what your market consists of, it gives you no insight into who your market consists of. And, in today’s connected, ever-changing world, we need to know who we’re providing our product or service to because they are so empowered by the hyperconnected world they live in that the market segments break down.

Every customer is now a market segment of one.

And you better know them. Personally. And treat them like a human being.

Because, it’s a demonstrated fact that if you don’t, it’s going to backfire on you in a big way. You could suffer irreparable brand and business damage if you fail to treat your customers like humans.

So you do you behave like a human business and treat your customers the way they frankly deserve to be treated; as humans?

Start by listening. Listen online and off. Make sure you know what people are saying about you, about your products and about your competitors.

And, when you hear something, reach out. Ask “how can we make this better?” or “how can we improve?” or, perhaps unusually, point out someone saying bad about a competitor to that competitor and let them know they need to fix it. If they don’t, then it’s your chance to get that customer. After you’ve been the good guy first.

It’s not that hard. It’s just a case of ensuring that in all things, you continue to act like a human, instead of that inhuman construct we’ve managed to create for ourselves, the business. Sometimes, that acting like a human leads to good that you can’t immediately measure in dollars but that has a profound impact (BTW, great job on this Telstra. You won a lot of friends for this).

At the core of behaving like a human in business is the notion of trust. Particularly trusting your staff, every one of them, to be a face for the business and empowering them to take action on behalf of the business to do good, to solve problems and to make sure that issues go to the person in the business who knows how to solve them.

And trust your customers. They know better than you what they want from your offering. So ask them. Not as you’re about to take something to market, but all through the process from concept to delivery. It’s like having a 24×7x365 focus group on hand. And you know what? Do something nice for the customers that helped, something human, if they made the product better by their ideas.

Business has always been about keeping secrets. About hiding your ideas. But what happens when you switch that on its head. You don’t necessarily have to go the whole radical transparency route, but what about exposing your ideas, your thinking, and the humans that work for you? Make these things your point of differentiation. Make them the things that keep you innovative as you adopt an approach that keeps you agile and razor focussed on delivering the best products and services you can.

When you hide, and keep unnecessary secrets from your customers (of course there will always be things you don’t reveal – but think about what they should be), your failures can, and will go global as disgruntled customers, some of them with mighty big soapboxes, point out your failings. You get what you deserve.

It is far better to be out there, being human, being trusting and trustworthy, being open. Wouldn’t you rather be a part of the conversation than the subject of it?

I believe by combining these factors into a formula, we can have a little fun with this, and also make some sense. So here it is.

Conversation + Trust + Openness = Delight, or more simply C + T + O =

Focus on that. Imagine.

Related posts

• Why are we even arguing about this? (8)
• BarCamp Sydney #4 – Saturday, 15 November 2008 (0)
• What will the future of media look like? (15)
• Wake up! (3)
• The conversation has rules (0)

This afternoon, Jason Langenauer posted a well-argued piece with respect to the issues he sees in the national discussion we’re having over the imposition of the Labor government’s Internet filter. Initially, I thought it was a good piece. It’s clear, makes sense, sensible. But Jason is wrong on several points.

First, I should point out that this is my personal view, formed after lengthy discussion with well known anti-filter proponent, Mark Newton; someone whose view and ability to argue a point I respect a great deal. It’s not a view that represents my role as a board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia, though it is a view I’m trying to influence that group with. Given EFA is a democracy, I may get voted down.

The #nocleanfeed movement is killing itself. But it’s not confusion that’s doing it as Jason and others have said. Anyone with even passing familiarity with the campaign has no confusion whatsoever about what it means. None.

Asserting that we (the #nocleanfeed movement) have somehow dug ourselves an inescapable hole by using that term is false.

Sure, I wouldn’t use #nocleanfeed to try to explain it to someone unfamiliar with the arguments, but that’s Communications 101; you use the language and understandings of your audience to talk to them. You don’t confuse them and fail to engage with them by using your language.

On the other hand, as pointed out to me by Mark, using filter is probably a bad choice. Filters are good. They remove impurities so we can drink clean water and other such important things. At the very least we should use the term “filter” (air-quotes very intentional).

EFA have just launched the Open Internet campaign. As someone who participated in the discussions that brought it about, I strongly support it and the message it sends. But we’re using filter everywhere. Why not call a spade a bloody great bulldozer and use the term censorship? That’s what we’re talking about, after all.

So here’s my view.

We’re smart, and we have all the tools we need to make this a fait accompli. Yet we dance around, playing nice, wording statements carefully and not calling out fools strongly when we see them.

Over two years into this campaign and Senator Stephen Conroy has been utterly unable to successfully frame this issue the way he wants – as a battle against child pornography. Not only do even those casually familiar with the issue know that the filter will fail to stop child porn, but they also know that it’s the wrong fight altogether; child porn is distributed via methods that Internet censorship can’t ever handle, at least with current technology.

We know that the argument that being anti-censorship is ipso facto to be pro child porn is rubbish. Senator Conroy has been called on this often enough that he’s largely given up on it.

We all know that fighting child porn is far better fought by adequately funding the Australian Federal Police and their high-tech crime unit to do the job they know how to do very well. Give them more resources and they can likely do it better again. I’ve met some of them, they’re incredibly dedicated and they believe in what they do.

And this week, the mainstream media and the public got 100 per cent sucked in by the idiots at Anonymous and their ridiculous Project Titstorm. Anyone with half a brain will accept that this action was completely unacceptable. It stopped government delivering important services to the public and did the anti-censorship argument no favors whatsoever by risking re-framing the debate in anti-censorship = pro-porn terms. To that I say an unqualified NO WAY!

On Monday evening on the ABC’s Q&A, Melinda Tankard-Reist managed to unequivocally demonstrate that she had zero understanding of this issue when she sought to conflate Anon’s attacks with child porn. She looked less informed on the Internet and censorship issues than did Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who, in a moment of infrequent clarity noted that kiddie porn perpetrators ought to be locked up. Yes, Senator! Though this may be the one and only time I ever agree with you.

The #nocleanfeed movement, its meaning and its ability to creep (hopefully pretty quickly, it’s an election year after all) into the greater public consciousness couldn’t be in a better position. And here’s why.

Those who understand the argument are eloquent. Let’s help others understand by explaining to every person we know just what a damn fool idea the whole thing is and why. It’s not that hard. I’ve written about it enough, and others more eloquent than me have too. Use their words, and mine, to help you.

The government, overall, is in something of an unclear mess over a great deal of its Communications portfolio, not least because there’s at least one Senator, in Kate Lundy, whose public opposition to the Internet censorship policy must be having an effect by now.

Every time Senator Conroy speaks about the issue, he makes less sense and dances around more than last time. He is rapidly losing authority because he can’t argue cogently about the censorship policy. I suspect he just wishes it would go away, but he’s argued so long and hard for it, that he has no face saving way out.

And, should Anon ever decide to play with the big kids rather than confining themselves to the sandpit where they can fling mud pies, they have the potential to be a powerful force. They are certainly smart enough, if misguided. Any blacklist will get leaked almost weekly. The update frequency on Wikileaks (currently not publishing as they try to fund raise – maybe you could donate?) will go through the roof!

The only real problem we face in the #nocleanfeed argument is our good manners. When we’ve couched something badly, we take the beating. When we argue well, we let the opposing forces argue against us and take the beating. It leaves us without a strong position and no driving story. Nobody really knows what we stand for. As Mr Newtown eloquently pointed out to me, “[like the US] everyone knows exactly what the American right wing claims to stand for, but nobody knows jack about what the
lefties represent.” Same with the #nocleanfeed lobby and to a relatively significant extent, the EFA.

We need to switch our approach. Argue hard. Point out the fault in the opposition argument. In public. In strong terms. Cut their legs out from under them.

Jason thinks there’s no strong, consistent framework for couching #nocleanfeed arguments. He’s wrong. Here it is, and it’s so simple your Luddite family members can understand:

• there’s no serious Internet content problem to solve – you just can’t inadvertently stumble on RC or child porn on the Internet
• even if it was, nobody wants the government to solve it – if they did, free filtering software would be incredibly popular
• even if they did, this solution won’t work – we’ve seen the trial results and the extensive analysis which points out the flaws
• even if it did, it’s too expensive, unreliable, performance-sapping,
  scope-creeping – ouch, ouch, ouch and no way
• even if it was perfect, it’ll be administered by governments ill-equipped to do so – we’ve seen several policy and program stumbles lately, do we want one over this?
• even if it was administered perfectly, the blacklist will leak – and leak, and leak, and leak, giving infinite publicity to exactly the content the government wants to suppress (you’ve heard of the Streisand Effect, right?)
• there is no possibility that the blacklist won’t leak – it already has and it will again

There’s your framework. Work those arguments. Expand them. Point out the risks of Nanny Stating. The disconnect between the government and the electorate.

Sounds like a strong movement with a great argument to present to me.

Related posts

• The Great Firewall of Canberra (14)
• Not the publicity you’re looking for – Stephen Conroy, the clean feed and TIME Magazine (1)
• No Clean Feed protest (0)
• Hubris, Open Internet and Clean feeds (4)
• Do these people have no idea? – the folly of the Internet Filter (18)

Image via Wikipedia

Want to help improve passport information and  online passport applications in Australia?

We are working to help the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and their service providers to improve the service offered by the Australian Passports web site. Your input to this research will have a measurable effect on the conclusions we draw and the advice we give.

If you’ve ever used the passports.gov.au web site, researched information there or applied for an Australian passport online, your input will be valuable.

If you’d like to contribute, please respond to the short survey we have. Or, of you’d like to, tell your story in the comments below or send us an email.

Related posts

• What a difference a week makes (30)
• The Great Firewall of Canberra (14)
• The 2020 Summit (3)
• Not the publicity you’re looking for – Stephen Conroy, the clean feed and TIME Magazine (1)
• No Clean Feed protest (0)

Next Thursday, I’m speaking at the Technology to Drive Growth workshop at the National Growth Summit conference in Sydney.

I’ll be doing a short presentation entitled Cluetrains, Conversations, Trust and Openness that I hope will open some eyes to the opportunities businesses can realise if they deal with their customers and stakeholders as their principal concern and communicate openly and authentically.

I’m sharing the stage on the day with a bunch of other smart folk that I really respect, including:

• Rob Manson from MOB
• Kate Carruthers from DBG, and
• Mick Liubinskas from Pollenizer

There are a bunch of others who are all likely to have great insight into building your business.

We’re also running a series of short roundtable discussions, including mine, which will be on the topic So, why wouldn’t you ride the Cluetrain?

As a special deal, you can access a half-price ticket to this event by downloading the registration form or registering online with a promo code you can have if you DM me on Twitter.

The event details, in case you want them quickly are:

Technology to Drive Growth Workshop

When: Thursday February 18th, 8:30am – 4:00pm

Where: Sydney Convention Centre

Related posts

• Cluetrains, Conversations, Trust and Openness (3)
• Why are we even arguing about this? (8)
• What will the future of media look like? (15)
• What does a social media consultant do? (7)
• Wake up! (3)

The hype around social media continues unabated – business, marketing, government, NFPs; everyone is getting involved. But to my mind, we’re still somewhat missing the point. Making it a part of our lives in a way that avoids the hype and adds real benefit to our own lives and the lives of others will be the the real tipping point of the acceptance of social media in business and amongst those who are still cautious about its adoption or perceive no need for it in their lives.

Additionally, there’s a large part of the world that simply doesn’t share our echo chamber. In the developing world connectedness is critical, as we continue to see in the management of disasters around the world (as in this great presentation from BarCamp Canberra 2010 by Shoaib Burq showing the massive increase in data available about Port au Prince since the earthquake) and in the continuing emergence of mobile data driven innovation in SE Asia and Africa. But for these folks, iPhones, Nexus Ones and iPads are still part of a distant future. Even a decent desktop PC may not be a reality. Rather, a grey-screen Nokia phone may be their tool for connectedness. We must engage with them on their terms.

So, here are my three big ideas for social media in 2010, distilled into some quick thoughts

We are still a long way from social media use in business as a given. Large numbers of businesses altogether and many more people within businesses of all sorts do not understand social media and perceive no value for it in their lives, the lives of their staff or their work. Education, valid, real case studies rather than theory, governance, mentoring, support from leadership are all critical factors in its success and as practitioners and consultants, we must enable that by speaking the language of business.

The developing world is yet to discover social media in the way the developed world has. And they may not want to. We must engage with the developing world to enable connections to happen and create great social innovation where infrastructure and tools may not be a rich as we have.

There will always be people for whom social media is not a priority. We must find ways to engage with them on their terms and integrate it with the things we are doing.

So, in the spirit of my last post, what do we DO from here to progress these ideas and the actions that can make a difference from them?

Related posts

• Why are we even arguing about this? (8)
• What a difference a week makes (30)
• Wake up! (3)
• The Right Stuff – attraction, engagement, retention in a hyperconnected world (8)
• The conversation has rules (0)

An emergent theme of my posts of late has been change. Whether that’s technology, user experience, reform of education, public sector and government, conferences or business (including my own), it’s a constant.

Equally, I’ve had many conversations in physical and virtual environments about change. Those conversations, to my very great benefit, have been with smart, motivated, interesting people – friends, peers and those I look up to.

Just yesterday, I was able to get deeply buried in several conversations about change at BarCamp Canberra 2010. This third Canberra BarCamp was far and away the best yet. Very balanced in its participant-generated program, issues of technology, the web, education, public sector reform and social innovation were openly and actively discussed. There’s no right or wrong, just great ideas (many available now on SlideShare).

One thing that emerged strongly from the sessions I was involved in – largely those on reform and social innovation – was raised in the first session of the day, Matt Moore’s deliberative democracy discussion on wicked problems. That problem is what I’m choosing to call next steps.

We all know it’s incredibly easy to discuss wicked problems. Equally, it’s near trivial (on a grand scale) to come up with solutions to them. We can define people, ideas, resources, finance and economics, social reforms and any number of other matters that will require resolution to solve these problems. It’s the next thing that’s the hard one, as I said in this tweet to Havas Media Lab director (and HBR blogger), Umair Haque.

It’s the next step, the tangible action, that’s wicked about all of these problems. And it’s next steps that we lack in solving all of the big problems we face. And it’s incumbent on all of us, in the sense of the Builder described in Haque’s The Builders’ Manifesto, to take next steps rather than simply engaging in conversation.

BarCamps, expos, conferences, summits. They’re all excellent places to begin solving the wicked problems. But we must take next steps.

For me, the biggest take away from BarCamp Canberra 2010 was DO. We must not just talk, we must be prepared to DO.

Related posts

• What a difference a week makes (30)
• PubCamp – the future of media on the Web (3)
• Government 2.0 Camp Australia (6)
• Conferences, inspiration, value (6)
• BarCamp Sydney #4 – Saturday, 15 November 2008 (0)

This is how you do a public service announcement. It’s a part of the Embrace This campaign.

They’ve extended to other social media as well, including Facebook.

It hits all the right notes – family, love, fear, death, safety. There’s no way you can’t engage. Their research and audience focus work must have been amazing. I’d love to know the evolution of this.

Well done Sussex Safer Roads.

Related posts

• Work (0)
• Why are we even arguing about this? (8)
• What will the future of media look like? (15)
• Social media strategy should be a long bet (3)
• Naked conversations… or not so much (16)

This post started as a comment on my pal, Linda Johannessen’s blog post about TED and conference organisers. Then it got long, so I figured I’d bring it over here. Not least because I want to discuss conference models this weekend at BarCamp Canberra 2010.

I’ll start with a story.

Attending something like TED is about as far from watching the videos (which are inspiring enough) as you can get. Spending a week in the company of a group of people for whom “impossible” is not an option and there is always a viable answer to any problem if the right people and resources can be applied to it is the most inspiring thing.

For a person like me (I’d almost call myself a card-carrying atheist, only I don’t think there’s an actual card), TED is the closest thing I’ve had to a religious experience. That week, of long, long days, inspiring talks and even more inspiring face-to-face interaction with other attendees is singularly amazing. So much so that attending has changed the way I think and act about many things in life and work.

As a living example, we all attend conferences, meet interesting people and say we’ll stay in touch. It never happens (or rarely at best). Of the many, many people I met at TED in 2009, I think I’ve had at least one conversation with almost every one of them in the year since. For some, it’s been many conversations and for those in Australia and NZ, more than one coffee meeting or meal. The community of TEDizens, is incredibly close-knit.

That’s the experience I want from the conferences I speak at and attend. Amazing inspiring events with great speakers. Outstanding organisation and production. Organisers who care passionately about the event. Meeting other attendees who I can relate to, share a meal and a story with and want to maintain a connection to after the even (and then actually do so).

One thing many folk aren’t aware of is that the big price tag to attend TED is actually used to fund the good work done by the Sapling Foundation that runs it. It’s not a profit-making business. Depending on which event you attend from 30-50 per cent of the price tag is a donation to the foundation. That’s pretty amazing considering the production values present at TED itself, which is far and away the highest quality conference production you’ll see anywhere. No other conference I’ve been to comes close (and I’ve been to many).

Now, that all sounds like a bit of a TED fanboy blast. Not so. Yes, TED is inspiring. Yes it’s amazingly well-organised. But it’s not perfect. And yes, it’s very expensive. But TED does in many ways demonstrate the counterpoint to what’s wrong with many conferences and their organisers.

The current conference model everywhere I’ve seen is fundamentally broken – (supposedly) professional event companies organising events for which they have little or no passion, charging attendees high fees to attend what turn out to be average events, boring, bland catering, not paying speakers who spend many, many hours to prepare the best work they can (on average, a conference talk takes me an hour of preparation for every minute of presentation time).

It all strikes me as driven by profit (which is fine by me, businesses have to make money) but at the expense of producing amazing events that really strive to give attendees value. How many truly amazing events are there?

Image by trib via Flickr

Of course, there are some exceptions to this. From my own experience or that of friends, Web Directions in Sydney, Webstock in Wellington (which I’ve not been to, but plan to for 2011), UX Australia, many of the BarCamp-based (there are lots of variants now, for almost any sector) events, TED itself. And anecdotally, a number of the “big thinking” events like The EG and Defrag. I’m sure examples exist for industries and interests I have no idea about.

But the fact remains, many conferences are underwhelming, low in attendee cost-benefit and not well organised. It could be so much better. Here are a few ideas:

• conferences should be organised (or at least advised) by people passionate about the subject matter (like the UX Australia team)
• conferences should seek to add value to the attendee experience beyond simply showing up and listening in
• conferences should be costed in such a way as to make adequate profit for the organisers (if profit is a motive) without knifing attendees, rather than being crazily overpriced
• conferences should pay speakers where appropriate, especially if they are taking time out from their businesses to attend and speak

Related posts

• Who are the people in your neighborhood – redux (1)
• What a difference a week makes (30)
• The next step (3)
• BarCamp Sydney #4 – Saturday, 15 November 2008 (0)
• Thinking about inspiration (1)