True Service

/

“It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.”

— Arthur Ashe

Service Providers

As I wrote at the beginning of the year in my blog post declaring karma as my theme word for 2010, we all have some way of expressing the concept of what we expect to happen when we help other people—when we provide a service for them.

In one way or another, in both our professional and our personal lives, we are all service providers. 

The most commonly used differentiation between professional and personal service is the exchange of money.  Your employer pays you to do your job, and not because you’re a wonderful human being—even though you are.  Your friends and family will help you whenever necessary, and not because you’re paying them—nice dinners, birthday presents, and other gifts don’t count.

 

Service Contracts

Whether it is a formal written document or an informal social agreement, all service is based upon some type of contract.

Once again because the exchange of money is typically involved, a professional service most commonly uses a written document, whereas a personal service most commonly uses a social agreement, which is often unwritten and frequently also unspoken.

A written document details the terms of service, which is the service level agreement that contractually binds the service provider to whomever they are providing service.  This service contract allows the parties involved to discuss any dissatisfaction or dispute in a relatively straightforward and civilized manner—or if lawyers get involved, in a needlessly complex and expensive manner.

Professional service contracts tend to focus on the minimum requirement necessary to fulfill the contractual commitment and therefore normally do not engender either party to go beyond the specific terms since nothing would be explicitly gained.

However, the party that is paying (i.e., “the party of the second part” for my lawyer readers) will normally attempt to exert subtle pressure on “the party of the first part” (i.e., the service provider for my non-lawyer readers) to deliver above and beyond the minimum requirement dictated by the service contract.  This is one aspect of what I like to refer to as “service psychology.”

 

Service Psychology

First of all, everyone prefers to get as much as possible without paying anything.  And when you do have to pay for something, everyone wants at the very least to “get what you paid for” while getting more than what you paid for is considered even better. 

These truths are universal and they do not automatically turn all of us into bad people (or all companies into evil corporations).

We also usually want to provide good service whether or not we are being paid, but when we are, there is a general tendency to be concerned about providing value worthy of our compensation.  This is the aspect of service psychology that can cause us to be receptive to the subtle pressure to exceed the minimum requirement dictated by the service contract.

Employers use it on employees.  Customers use it on companies (or more precisely, on their customer service representatives).  Business partners use it on each other.  And of course, this aspect of service psychology can be reversed to exert subtle pressure for encouraging acceptance that the minimum requirement dictated by the service contract has already been met.

We can also condition ourselves to resist these subtle pressures and even claim that we are simply defending ourselves from being taken advantage of by the other party—and regardless of which “side” of the service contract we currently find ourselves.

Such “service psychological warfare” will sometimes escalate until the lawyers eventually come crashing through the skylight, rappelling down ropes with one hand, while holding the original signed copy of the service contract in their other hand, and quoting aloud the terms, conditions, warranties, and indemnification from page 13, section 8, sub-section 3, paragraph 5.

 

Social Agreements

Since money is typically not involved and barring a few exceptions (e.g., a divorce or a contested will) no lawyers come into play, we tend not to view our (often unwritten, unspoken) social agreements with friends and family as “personal service contracts.” 

However, the underlying principles of service psychology apply just as much to social agreements where perhaps paradoxically, we have both a much higher expectation for those that serve us and a much greater sense of obligation to those we serve.

Therefore, our social agreements truly are personal service contracts.  There are terms and conditions, minimum requirements, and constant measurement of our costs, risks, and returns.  We all have a natural tendency to “keep score” one way or another.

 

All Service is a Stage

All service is a stage, and all of us are merely players, each having our exits and entrances, and in our time playing many parts, some professional and some personal, in many “service dramas” seemingly fraught with equal potential for tragedy and comedy. 

Forgive the Shakespearean flourish, but all of our narratives tend towards the dramatic and service is certainly no exception. 

Although we can easily turn our professional services into a drama (even without rappelling lawyers crashing through skylights), our social agreements generally involve more “emotional service” and are therefore far more inclined to become dramatic.

However, all service dramas are often simply a crisis of perspective—specifically our preference for our own above all others.

 

True Service

I began this blog post using only the second sentence from a famous Arthur Ashe quote, which in its entirety reads:

“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic.

It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.”

Although I am very fond of the original wording, I will end this blog post by paraphrasing the full quote:

“True service is remarkably rare, very undramatic, totally unconcerned with personal benefit, and completely content to serve others at whatever cost.”

Related Posts

The Game of Darts – An Allegory

“I can make glass tubes”

My #ThemeWord for 2010: KARMA

Wednesday Word: April 7, 2010

/

Wednesday Word is an OCDQ regular segment intended to provide an occasional alternative to my Wordless Wednesday posts.  Wednesday Word provides a word (or words) of the day, including both my definition and an example of recommended usage.

 

Vendor Asskisstic

Definition – whereas “vendor agnostic” describes a general methodology or solution that does not require the technology or services provided by a specific vendor, vendor asskisstic is the complete opposite.

Example – “Although we requested a vendor agnostic proposal from Acme Consulting, their recommendation was so blatantly vendor asskisstic that it might as well have been printed in Big Blue letters.”

The Game of Darts – An Allegory

/

Darts

Photo via Flickr (Creative Commons License) by: Mike Burns


The Game of Darts – An Allegory

“Other than the people involved, what else do you need in order to play the game of darts?”

With this question, so began another one of grandfather’s life lessons. 

“Darts . . . a dartboard . . . and a scorecard,” I said slowly.

“Very good,” grandfather responded.  “Why do you need each one of them?”

“You throw the darts at the dartboard in order to score points and the scorecard keeps track of who’s winning,” I said.

“Excellent,” said grandfather.  “Now which do you think is more fun, keeping score or throwing darts?”

“Since I’m still too young to throw darts, I guess I’m supposed to say keeping score,” I sarcastically replied.

Grandfather gave me an icy stare.  He wasn’t a fan of sarcasm.

“Sorry,” I said quietly while looking down at my scuffling feet.  “But throwing darts is obviously more fun.”

“Yes, obviously throwing darts is more fun,” grandfather continued, “but keeping score is important as we previously established.  Now, which do you think is more fun, throwing darts or being the dartboard?”

“Huh? I . . . um . . . I’m sorry,” I stammered.  “I don't understand the question.”

“Do you think it would be fun being the dartboard?” repeated grandfather.  “Obviously, I do not mean you or any person for that matter, and I want to be very clear on this—especially if your parents ask—NEVER actually throw darts at anyone!  I am asking you to use your imagination and think about what the game of darts feels like from the perspective of the dartboard.”

I quietly stared at the dartboard while my eight-year-old mind struggled to make sense of the question.

“Don’t hurt yourself by thinking too hard,” grandfather joked.

“I don’t think it would be any fun at all to be the dartboard,” I answered in a soft and serious tone.  “I bet the dartboard doesn’t like this game at all.  I bet the dartboard thinks this game sucks—er, I mean—stinks.”

“Yes, the dartboard probably thinks the game is cruel,” grandfather replied.  “After all, it’s not like the dartboard ever gets to take a turn . . . and throw itself at the darts.”

Grandfather gave me a goofy grin and then he laughed out loud.  He was a big fan of laughter.

I giggled uncontrollably while my eight-year-old mind played a cartoon-like image of the dartboard throwing itself at the darts.

As we both slowly regained our composure, grandfather continued.  “Now, let’s imagine that the game of darts is an allegory, another way of thinking about something, such as three people having a conversation.  For example, you, me, and your brother.”

“Um, okay,” I replied.

“Let’s say your brother is upset and yelling at me about something,” started grandfather.

“Ha!  That’s easy to imagine,” I interrupted.  “Sorry, you were saying?”

“Your brother is upset—yes, easy to imagine but not the point—of the three required things necessary in order to play the game, which one is your brother?” asked grandfather.

“The darts!” I replied.

“And if he is yelling at me, which one of the three things am I?” asked grandfather.

“The dartboard—and that makes me the scorecard—why I am always the scorecard?” I whined.

“Settle down, I’m trying to make a point here,” grandfather retorted.

“You can’t make a point—you’re the dartboard—not the darts,” I mumbled.

“Very good smart ass—er, I mean smart aleck—yes, I am the dartboard and being the dartboard isn’t any fun, remember?” grandfather replied.

I quietly nodded my head, knowing not to push my luck with another sarcastic remark.

“But if nobody’s the dartboard,” grandfather resumed, “then your brother and I couldn’t be playing the game of darts, could we?”

I had previously been through enough lessons with grandfather that I knew what was coming next.

“So, what’s my p—what am I trying to say?” asked grandfather.

“Um, that when three people are having a conversation,” I slowly responded, “and one of them starts yelling at another, the one who is yelling is the darts, the one being yelled at is the dartboard, it’s no fun being the dartboard, no one likes getting yelled at, but . . . everyone needs someone to yell at . . . and needs someone else to keep score?”

“That’s pretty close,” grandfather replied.  “In most conversations, everyone is simply waiting for their turn to speak—their turn to throw the word-darts.  When it’s not their turn, they become the scorecard in order to track how the conversation is going.  The dartboard is usually the topic of the conversation—what they’re taking turns throwing the word-darts at.  However, when the conversation turns into an argument . . .”

“Then they start throwing word-darts at each other,” I interjected on cue, “taking turns turning each other into the dartboard, and nobody likes being the dartboard!”

“Correct!” said grandfather.

“But you also said that if nobody is the dartboard, then you can’t play the game.  I’m a little confused,” I responded.

“Yes, that is the most challenging thing about effective communication,” continued grandfather.  “Although no one likes being the dartboard, sometimes a dartboard is exactly what the other person needs you to be.  Other times, a scorecard is exactly what the other person needs you to be . . .”

“When they need to be the only one throwing all of the word-darts?” I asked.

“Correct!” said grandfather.

“Therefore, what you’re saying is that,” I thoughtfully concluded, “sometimes you’re the darts, sometimes you’re the scorecard, and sometimes you’re the dartboard.  You can’t play the game of darts unless you have all three.  Therefore, you can’t have effective communication unless you’re willing to sometimes talk, sometimes listen, and sometimes be willing to get yelled at.”

“That’s my boy!” said grandfather.  “You know, you’re pretty smart for your age.”

“That’s because I take after grandmother.”

 

Related Posts

Podcast: Open Your Ears

Shut Your Mouth

Hailing Frequencies Open

Comic Relief: Dilbert to the Rescue

/

For truly comic relief, there is perhaps no better resource than Scott Adams and the Dilbert comic strip.

Therefore, today's blog post simply provides some Dilbert Views on the following topics:

  • Enterprise Architecture
  • Strategic Planning
  • Collaboration
  • Consultants

 

Enterprise Architecture

Dilbert.com

Dilbert.com

 

Strategic Planning

Dilbert.com

Dilbert.com

 

Collaboration

Dilbert.com

Dilbert.com

 

Consultants

Dilbert.com

Dilbert.com

“I can make glass tubes”

/

One of my favorite television writers is Aaron Sorkin (more famous for creating The West Wing), who created the short-lived Sports Night, where William H. Macy guest-starred as an expert consultant brought in by executive management.

In a “strategy session” scene, where executives are dictating mandatory changes, Macy's character calls for a break, allowing the frustrated team to leave the room before losing their composure.  He then asks executive management to take a walk with him. 

Unbeknownst to them as it is happening, while he proceeds to escort them out of the building, he recites the following:

“You guys know who Philo Farnsworth was?

He invented television.  I don't mean he invented television like Uncle Milty [Milton Berle]. 

I mean he invented the television in a little house in Provo, Utah, at a time when the idea of transmitting moving pictures through the air would be like me saying I figured out a way to beam us aboard the Starship Enterprise.

He was a visionary.  He died broke and without fanfare. 

The guy I really like though was his brother-in-law, Cliff Gardner. 

He said, ‘Philo, I know everyone thinks you're crazy, but I want to be a part of this.  I don't have your head for science, so I'm not going to be able to help much with the design and mechanics of the invention, but it sounds like you're going to need glass tubes.’

You see, Philo was inventing the Cathode Ray Tube [CRT], and even though Cliff didn't know what that meant or how it worked, he'd seen Philo's drawing, and he knew that he was going to need glass tubes.  And since television hadn't been invented yet, it's not like you could get them at the local TV repair shop.

‘I want to be a part of this,’ Cliff said. ‘I don't have your head for science.  How would it be if I were to teach myself to be a glass blower?  And I could set up a little shop in the backyard.  And I could make all the tubes you'll need for testing.’

There ought to be Congressional Medals for people like that.

[At this point, and quite understandably, executive management was very confused.]

I've looked over the notes you've been giving over the last year or so, and I have to say they exhibit an almost total lack of understanding of how to get the best from talented people.

You said before that for whatever reason, I seem to be able to exert some authority around here.

I assure you it's not because they like me.  It's because they knew two minutes after I walked in the door, I'm someone who knows how to do something.

I can help.

I can make glass tubes.

That's what they need.”

What's my point?

Sometimes—and with the very best of intentions—when we try to help others, we have a tendency to try to get them to change everything they are currently doing.  More specifically, we try to get them to do things our way.

After all, our way works great for us, surely it will work just as well for them, right?

Wrong.

Judy Garland once said, “Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of someone else.”

So, if you want to help others be a first-rate version of themselves, then follow Cliff Gardner's lead. 

Take a good look at the situation, realize the person you are trying to help is full of potential, and probably just needs a little help with something very minor.

Listen carefully to the person you want to help—and then—kindly let them know:

“I can make glass tubes.”

Related Posts

My #ThemeWord for 2010: KARMA

Freemium is the future – and the future is now

/

Earlier this week, two excellent blog posts—Three Ways to Start a Revolution by James Chartrand on Men with Pens, and Your Dream is Under Attack by Nathan Hangen on Copyblogger—discussed the somewhat polarizing debate about making money from blogging, which is one of many examples of the so-called “freemium” business model, which was first articulated in 2006 by venture capitalist Fred Wilson:

“Give your service away for free, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth and referral networks, then offer premium priced, value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base.”

In 2009, Chris Anderson published the book Free: The Future of a Radical Price, which among numerous other coverage, was critically reviewed in the article Priced to Sell by Malcolm Gladwell, and discussed in an interview conducted by Charlie Rose.

 

Isn't everything on the Internet supposed to be free?

The freemium model, as well as the concept expressed in Anderson's book, is not entirely about the Internet.  However, it is most often at the center of polarized debates because more and more businesses, in varying degrees, are becoming online businesses.

General public perception is that the Internet is free—getting on the Internet does have a cost (sometimes conveniently ignored), in terms of electricity, ISPs, and the various computer and mobile devices used to access it.  However, once you are connected, the content on the Internet is either free or is supposed to be free—according to the “logic” of a very common perspective.

To be fair, this is somewhat understandable, especially given the fact that many of the most popular online services, such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, to name but three examples from countless others, are in fact, free – and their users often defiantly claim that they would never pay any amount of money for such a service.

 

So how does the Internet make money?

The Internet has traditionally made money the same way broadcast television (also “free” when you conveniently ignore the cost of electricity, cable and satellite providers, and the various devices used to access it) has traditionally made money – advertising.

Paraphrasing (and oversimplifying) the words of Chris Anderson, the three generations of making money on the Internet:

  1. Pop-Up Ads – in the beginning was the Pop-up Ad—and it was not good.  Do you still remember (or are you old enough to remember) the early days of the Internet?  Nearly every website you visited brought the seemingly random attack of pop-up ads.  Even after the invention of pop-up blockers and the advent of alternatives to pop-up ads, online advertising was not very context sensitive and not only annoying, but also largely ineffective.

     

  2. Google AdSense – the next generation of advertising was basically pioneered by Google (or companies they now own).  Exemplified by the now somewhat ubiquitous Google AdSense, ads specific to website content provided online advertising that is both less annoying and seemingly far more effective.

     

  3. Freemium – we are just entering the third generation of making money on the Internet, and the first one not ruled by advertising—at least not advertising in the “traditional” sense.  Under this new model, free online content is made available to everyone—providing the opportunity to “up-sell” premium content to a (typically small) percentage of your audience.

 

Freemium is NOT a new concept

Although many Internet users become seemingly outraged by the very notion of the option to purchase premium content, the idea of giving away something for free in order to facilitate a potential purchase is by no means a new concept.

Just a few simple examples include:

  • Samples at the mall food court are free, but you have to pay to eat a full meal
  • Movie previews are free, but you have to pay to watch an entire movie
  • Broadcast television shows are free, but you have to pay for the DVD box sets

The Internet, however, has seemingly always been viewed as a special case.

I believe this is mostly due to the ratio of free to premium.  Food samples, movie previews, and an individual episode of a television show, are small compared to the size of a full meal, a full-length movie, and a full season (or series) of episodes.

In other words, what we get for free isn't much, so paying for the rest makes more sense.  On the Internet, this ratio is reversed. 

Since almost everything on the Internet is free (again, after the cost of connection), we are genuinely, and perhaps really quite understandably, surprised or even annoyed when we encounter something that we are asked to pay for.

In other words, since we get so much for free, paying just to get a little more simply doesn't seem to make sense. 

After all, if the full meals at the mall food court were free, we certainly wouldn't pay just to eat samples.

(And yes—I do realize that was a terrible analogy on so many levels—so please stop yelling at me.)

 

Isn't freemium the end of the world as we know it?

Obviously, the real issue is not the ratio of free to premium, or how much you should (or should not) expect to get for free. 

The fundamental argument is that anything you pay for should be worth the price.

Historically, price has been the indicator of value, meaning something has value only if people are willing to pay for it.  Higher prices, in theory at least, indicate higher value, especially if people are willing to purchase at the higher price.

So, if people are willing to pay for it, then this indicates there is a demand for it, for which a supply of it must be produced. 

(And yes—I do realize that was a huge oversimplification of economic theory—so yet again, please stop yelling at me.)

One of the most common counter-arguments to the freemium model is that if price is allowed to essentially drop to zero, then there will be no way to accurately measure demand, which means there will be no way for content producers to determine what to supply.  Furthermore, if almost everything is free, then why would content consumers be willing to pay for anything at all.

If nobody is willing to pay, then nobody can possibly get paid, and all online content will be completely user-generated, and following Andrew Keen's argument in The Cult of the Amateur, a cultural apocalypse occurs, which results in not only the Internet, but the entirety of human expression, being reduced to us hurling our feces at each other just like our primate cousins.

(You may feel free to resume yelling at me now.)

 

Freemium is the future—and the future is now

Obviously, the freemium business model doesn't only apply to blogging.  By the way, it is totally understandable if you had forgotten that my lunatic fringe was ignited by the debate over making money from blogging.

Freemium is the future of most of the business world—and the harsh reality is—the future has already arrived.

In my opinion, too many people, companies, and in some cases, entire industries, are wasting their time, effort, and money trying to fight the unrelenting reality of freemium.  Instead of refusing to accept that the price of what you are now offering may be falling essentially to zero—focus on creating something new that people would be willing to pay for.

Once again, to paraphrase Chris Anderson, “free” is only one of many markets—and only one of many additional pricing levels. 

Don't stop at thinking about just two versions of each individual product or service—one free version and one premium version.  You should be thinking about one free version and multiple tiers of premium.  Value still drives price.  Therefore, if you can truly add more value at each tier, then you can successfully demand a higher price.

Freemium works as a viable model because people will always be willing to pay a premium for something worth its price.

If you can't (or can no longer) produce something your customers are willing to pay for—that's your problem, not theirs.

My #ThemeWord for 2010: KARMA

/

Rob Paller introduced me to the #ThemeWord tradition, started in 2008 by Erica Douglass as an alternative to New Year's Resolutions, where you pick one word to serve as an over-arching theme for the upcoming year.

 

My #ThemeWord for 2010: KARMA

The Sanskrit word karma (literally “action” or “deed”) is commonly misunderstood or oversimplified.  It is a complex concept with deep roots in Eastern philosophy and the religious traditions of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

First and most important—please let me stress that I do not wish to offend anyone's religious sensibilities. 

I am using the word karma in a philosophical and secular sense.  However, I will admit that my perspective is greatly influenced by my non-religious study of Buddhism.  Of the many useful texts I own on the subject, my favorite description of karma comes from the book Lotus In A Stream by Chinese Buddhist Master Hsing Yun (as translated by Tom Graham):

“Karma is a universal law of cause and effect concerned with intentional deeds.  The law of karma tells us that all intentional deeds produce results that eventually will be felt by the doer of the deed.  Good deeds produce good karmic effects and bad deeds produce bad karmic effects.”

Obviously, “cause and effect” is neither only an Eastern concept, nor only a philosophical concept. 

The history of both Western philosophy, perhaps most notably by Aristotle, as well as Western science, perhaps most notably by Isaac Newton, also includes excellent exposition on cause and effect. 

Therefore, please feel free to contemplate “karma” in Aristotelian and/or Newtonian terms.

Some additional alternatives include:

  • Reciprocal Altruism
  • The Whuffie Factor
  • Quid Pro Quo

 

Reciprocal Altruism

Evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers coined the term reciprocal altruism to explain how altruism, which he defined as an act of helping someone else—although incurring some “cost” for this act—may have evolved because it was beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a reverse situation at some point in the future, where the person that you helped before may perform an altruistic act towards you.

 

The Whuffie Factor

Tara Hunt uses the term whuffie to describe “the residual outcome—the currency—of your reputation.  You lose or gain it based on positive or negative actions, your contributions to the community, and what people think of you.”

 

Quid Pro Quo

The Latin phrase quid pro quo (literally “something for something”) is commonly used to describe an equal exchange of goods, services, or favors, which can be alternatively described using the far more colloquial phrase:

“You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.”

Mean People Suck

So, whether you prefer to use karma, reciprocal altruism, whuffie, quid pro quo, or other terms, we all have some way of expressing the concept of what we expect to happen when we help other people.

We have a natural tendency to “keep score” one way or another.  We usually help others so that they will be more willing to return the favor—so others will be indebted to us.  We use subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) peer pressure techniques.

We remember who turns us down (or simply ignores us) when we ask them for their help.  And we especially take note when it was someone we had previously helped.

Mean and selfish people definitely suck.  But let's face it, nobody's perfect.  We all have bad days, we all occasionally say and do stupid things, and we all occasionally treat people worse than they deserve to be treated.

 

Quid Pro No

Although I accept the fact I can't possibly help everyone, in 2010 I pledge to help others whenever I can.

Most important, I pledge to practice quid pro no—I will help others without worrying about what's in it for me.

Or to borrow the wonderful words of 8th century Indian Buddhist scholar Shantideva (as translated by Stephen Batchelor):

“Even when I do things for the sake of others

No sense of amazement or conceit arises.

It is just like feeding myself;

I hope for nothing in return.”  

How to Pick Your #ThemeWord for 2010

Karma is my theme word for 2010.  I will occasionally discuss it directly and indirectly in my blog posts throughout the year.

If you are interested in participating in the theme word tradition, then follow these three simple steps:

  1. Think of a word that reflects your hopes and dreams for 2010
  2. Share your theme word with friends on Twitter, Facebook, or your blog
  3. Be sure and use the hashtag #ThemeWord

The War of Word Craft

/

After publishing my previous post, I watched Empire of the Word Part 4: The Future of Reading, which was a panel discussion on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, featuring Cynthia Good, Keith Oatley, Mark Federman, Bob Stein, and Bill Buxton.

Please let me stress that I highly respect all of the panelists who were involved in this discussion.  My selective paraphrasing of their quotes, which I have woven into the tapestry of this blog post, doesn't come close to doing justice to the full range of excellent insights they shared.  Therefore, although it is 53 minutes long, I highly recommend watching the full video.

 

The War of Word Craft

Bob Stein used the extremely popular multi-player online game World of Warcraft, where the players collaboratively create the narrative in real-time, as an example of the type of interactive multimedia experience that may be the true future of reading.

This analogy inspired my post title—since the debate seems to be about not only the future of reading, but also the future of how what we read (and by whatever means we “read” it) will be produced—or using far more dramatic flourish, this debate is about:

The War of Word Craft

e-Books are the end of anything worth reading?

When the financial implications of electronic publishing were briefly discussed, Bill Buxton explained that when things go digital and there is no cost of goods (i.e., producing an e-book), there is a law of economics that states the price drops essentially to zero.

Buxton argued this would mean the end of anything worth reading.  Since, when professional writers are no longer able to make a living from writing (i.e., because e-books are “free”), then only amateurs will write.  This will cause a dramatic drop in the overall quality of writing, and therefore no new writing will be worth reading.

 

Publishing companies are the gatekeepers of standards?

A somewhat similar sentiment was expressed by Cynthia Good, in defending what have traditionally been considered the gatekeepers for the standards of high quality, professional writing—publishing companies. 

(Please note: Good was formerly the president of a publishing company, and is now an academic director of publishing.)

Good argues that historically it has been publishers and editors who select and perfect the books to be published, thereby guaranteeing high standards for quality writing—and that society still requires these standards.

 

The Cult of the Amateur

In 2007, Andrew Keen wrote the controversial book The Cult of the Amateur, which has the provocative sub-title: “how blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today's user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values.”

I am definitely not suggesting Buxton and Good are advocating a similar perspective.  However, I find both the notion that only “professional” writers can write anything worth reading, and we require gatekeepers of “standards” to protect us from ourselves, to be incredibly pretentious and outdated ideas.

Writing is not an esoteric skill possessed by only a select few—and the best writers are not motivated (only) by money.

Publishing companies publish books that guarantee a high profit margin—and not high standards for quality writing.

 

The New Word Order

Bob Stein discussed the differences between the old-school and new-school mentality of authors.

The commitment of old-school authors is to engage with the subject matter on behalf of future readers.

By contrast, the commitment of new-school authors is to engage with readers in the context of the subject matter.

Stein believes the future role of the publisher is to develop a community around the subject matter, and bring the content to the community who wants to read it, instead of pushing the community toward the content you tell them they should read.

Mark Federman agreed, and sees the role of the publisher changing into one of creating an environment of engagement for genres and niche communities, which bring together writers and readers.

Federman also sees the roles of writers and readers becoming interchangeable within these communities. 

Quoting Finnegans Wake by James Joyce: “my consumers, are they not my producers?”

Pardon the pun, but I believe this will become the new order of the publishing world, or more simply: The New Word Order.

 

A Different Kind of Social Media

Bob Stein explained that solitary reading is really a recent development in human history.  Previously, most reading was a very social activity, where groups of people came together to listen to books (and poetry and other works) being read out loud.

Books (and reading as we know it) will not go away.  However, Stein believes we are at the very beginning of the explosion of new forms of written (and other creative) expression. 

The idea of reading (and writing) with others is going to become commonplace again, because we value the input of others, which greatly improves our individual experience, understanding, and unleashes the true joy of reading.

In what Stein describes, I see the future of reading and writing as a different kind of social media—a better kind of social media.

 

New Medium, New Message

In his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase: “the medium is the message.”

Steve Paikin asked what, within this new medium we have been discussing, is the message?

Mark Federman responded:

“Connection—the ability to connect readers and writers and interchange their roles.  The ability to collaborate as we construct knowledge, as we engage with one another's experiences, as we bring multiple contexts into understanding what it is we are reading and creating simultaneously—that's the message.”


Will people still read in the future?

/

This question and debate was motivated by my comments on the recent blog post The Future of Reading by Phil Simon.

In the following OCDQ Video, I share some of my perspectives on the future of reading, specifically covering three key points:

  1. Books vs. e-Books
  2. Print Media vs. Social Media
  3. Reading vs. Multimedia

  If you are having trouble viewing this video, then you can watch it on Vimeo by clicking on this link: OCDQ Video

 

A Very Brief History of Human Communication

Long before written language evolved, humans communicated using hand and facial gestures, monosyllabic and polysyllabic grunting, as well as crude drawings and other symbols, all in an attempt to share our thoughts and feelings with each other.

First, improved spoken language increased our ability to communicate by using words as verbal symbols for emotions and ideas.  Listening to stories, and retelling them to others, became the predominant means of education and “recording” our history.

Improved symbolism via more elaborate drawings, sculptures, and other physical and lyrical works of artistic expression, greatly enhanced our ability to not only communicate, but also leave a lasting legacy beyond the limits of our individual lives.

Later, written language would provide a quantum leap in human evolution.  Writing (and reading) greatly improved our ability to communicate, educate, record our history, and thereby pass on our knowledge and wisdom to future generations.

 

The Times They Are a-Changin’

The pervasiveness of the Internet and the rapid proliferation of powerful mobile technology is transforming the very nature of human communication—some purists might even argue it is regressing human communication.

I believe there is already a declining interest in reading throughout society in general, and more specifically, a marked decline across current generation gaps, which will become even more dramatic in the coming decades.

 

Books vs. e-Books

People are reading fewer books—and fewer people are reading books.  The highly polarized “book versus e-book debate” is really only a debate within the shrinking segment of the population that still reads books. 

So, yes, between us book lovers, some of us will not exchange our personal tactile relationship with printed books for an e-book reader made of the finest plastic, glass, and metal, and equipped with all the bells and whistles of the latest technology. 

However, e-book readers simply aren't going to make non-book readers want to read books.  I am truly sorry Amazon and Barnes & Noble, but the truth is—the Kindle and Nook are not going to making reading books cool—they will simply provide an alternative for people who already enjoy reading books, and mostly for those who also love having the latest techno-gadgets.

 

Print Media vs. Social Media

We continue to see print media (newspapers, magazines, and books) either offering electronic alternatives, or transitioning into online publications—or in some cases, simply going out of business.

I believe the primary reason for this media transition is our increasing interest in exchanging what has traditionally been only a broadcast medium (print media) for a conversation medium (social media).

Social media can engage us in conversation and enable communication between content creators and their consumers.

We are constantly communicating with other people via phone calls, text messages, e-mails, and status updates on Twitter and Facebook.  We are also sharing more of our lives visually through the photos we post on Flickr and the videos we post on YouTube.  More and more, we are creating—and not just consuming—content that we want to share with others.

We are also gaining more control over how we filter communication.  Google real-time searches and e-mail alerts, RSS readers, and hashtagged Twitter streams—these are just a few examples of the many tools currently allowing us to customize and personalize the content we create and consume.

We are becoming an increasingly digital society, and through social media, we are living more and more of both our personal and professional lives online, blurring—if not eliminating—the distinction between the two.

 

Reading vs. Multimedia

I believe the future of human communication will be a return to the more direct social interactions that existed before the evolution of written language.  I am not predicting a return to polysyllabic grunting and interpretive dance. 

Instead, I believe we will rely less and less on reading and writing, and more and more on watching, listening, and speaking.

The future of human communication may become short digital bursts of multimedia experiences, seamlessly blending an economy of words with audio and video elements.  Eventually, even digitally written words may themselves disappear—and we will communicate via interactive digital video and audio—and the very notion of “literacy” may become meaningless.

But fear not—I don't predict this will happen until the end of the century—and I am probably completely wrong anyway.

 

Please Share Your Thoughts

Do you read a lot of books?  If so, have you purchased an e-book reader (e.g., Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble Nook) or are you planning to in the near-future?  If you have an e-book reader, how would you compare it to reading a printed book?

Do you read newspapers and/or magazines?  If so, are you reading them in print or online? 

How often do you read blogs and other publications that are only available as online content?

How often do you listen to podcasts or watch video blogs or other online videos (excluding television and movies)?

What is the future of reading?