electronic museum

Entries categorized as ‘ugc’

All noise, no signal. Lifestreaming is a timesink

January 25, 2008 · 12 Comments

The fascination with various “lifestreaming” tools continues apace. Brian Kelly has been getting particularly excited about the regulation (or not, as his fellow Twitterers are shouting) of these tools. “We should have standards” he says. “No! Standards are boring”, everyone replies…

In this particular area I have to say I pretty much fall on the side of the anti-standards bods – lifestreaming should be about spontaneity and not regulation – but there are still some interesting issues about the modes of use of these tools, and I can understand what Brian is pointing out.

The reason why there are issues is pretty clear: lifestreaming is a paradigm shift; it’s disruptive and hence different from everything that has come before. In some ways, tools like Twitter are IM-like in the way they work. In others they’re a little bit more like a chat room. In others, they’re like an email thread and in yet others more like a discussion board.

There’s no surprise therefore that we’re all a bit confused. Throw into the recipe tools like Twitterfeed (passes feeds to your Twitter stream), Hashtags (enables you to tag tweets), Twitter Facebook app (feeds your tweets to Facebook status) or Twittervision (type ‘L:’ for location…). Then lightly saute before throwing in some finely chopped Pownce (it’s the new Twitter, only ‘better’) or Jaiku (Google bought it so it must be good..) or Tumblr (who really knows what ‘microblogging’ is anyway?)…and it’s hardly surprising that we’re feeling the need for some sanity.

This is classic Gartner hype in action. The emergence and adoption of these technologies is rapid, exciteable, reactionary. Darwinian evolution is choking the ideas that don’t work and elevating those that do.

Take the Twitter Facebook app as an example. Both Brian and I installed it at pretty much the same time. It links your Twitter updates to your Facebook status. All good, you think – I only have to do this once, updates both – excellent. Then you realise that actually the use mode is different: Twitter isn’t being used as a “what are you doing” tool (the original intention) but instead has become a way of having a conversation with your fellow users. In this context, linking it to Facebook makes no sense, as the following screen shot demonstrates. Shortly afterwards, both Brian and I (independently) removed it.

twitter on facebook

In “conversation” mode, Twitter doesn’t actually work – if I’m friends with person B and they’re friends with person C then all is fine from my perspective if I’m having a conversation with B. If, however, B is having a conversation with C, I just get B’s side of the discussion. And that, frankly, is rubbish…

Pownce might be about to help out here – it gives you the option of posting comments to public/all friends/selected friend. But then we’re really back to square one: sending a message to “public” and you might as well use Twitter. Send it to a single friend or a group and you might as well use email or Facebook messaging.

And here, for me, is the rub. I’m going to go out on the line here (always risky) and suggest that essentially none of these tools actually adds anything. Let me rephrase that. All of these tools do add huge amounts of noise, but to me none of them add signal. Sure, they’re fun. Sure, I check mine every so often and take part in the conversation, but they’re not doing anything useful for me apart from…er…um…

It’s a bit like those 3D world conversations when you discuss the various technical aspects of the 3D world and actually find after an hour or two you haven’t actually shared *anything* useful. It’s technology for technologies sake. I think we’re getting caught up in the fact that we *can* rather than finding a gap in need and responding to that gap.

This is not to say that lifestreaming doesn’t have a place. I can see that during a conference, being able to send comments is useful. I can see that the mobile integration factor is a pretty exciting area of development. I can see how this might help during an emergency, or during a live event like a talk as a way of garnering feedback. Here on my desktop, however, it’s just a distraction, a timesink.

Within an institution, I’m also failing to see the applications. And this is where Brian and I both converge and diverge all at the same time. I think he has a point in trying to establish the modes of use, settle these down and try and get some clarity. But unlike Brian, I’m not convinced that institutionally there is anything in it. It may be that these tools and modes of use mature, and once we’ve all skidded through the trough of disillusionment we’ll find we’re in more informed place. But for now, I’m watching (and taking part…!) with an air of cynicism.

What do you think? Do you use these tools? Do you think they have a place in institutions? Should we look to standardise, either technology or modes of use? Comments please!

Categories: facebook · innovation · museum · social network · ugc · web2.0
Tagged: , , , ,

Scarcity vs scale

January 14, 2008 · 11 Comments

“Musical” blokeI’ve been finishing off the openness paper this week (taking me a long time to get my ideas together at the mo..) and doing some thinking around how you manage to still make money in this brave new world of free, open, readily available everything. Actually, let’s not call it making money but creating value, either in a financial or social sense.

Ian Rogers (Yahoo), who had posted before about the music industry tendancy to ostrich the very obvious problems of their industry (today highlighted by the EMI news of 2,000 redundancies) has written a looooooong but very insightful post about where it all goes from here.

The article is really worth taking the time to read in its entirity, but the bit which really caught my eye and got me thinking in terms of the whole commercial – value – assets – openness debate was the opening phrase, and title of the presentation:

“Losers wish for scarcity. Winners leverage scale”

Think about the importance of what is being said here for a minute: In the traditional world of marketing, selling, commerce, the value of something is largely determined by scarcity. This is still the way of the [physical] world in many ways today. We buy diamonds because they are rare; we phone a plumber because he has unique skills and knows how to fix the boiler better than we do; we go to museums to see things which we can’t see anywhere else.

The problem that the music industry has – and the cultural sector – is that once you move these endeavours online the entire equation changes shape, radically.

Whereas Amazon or other retailers with “real” product sit on top of the pile by increasing value both by leveraging scale (number of visitors buying books increasing incrementally as traffic increases) and scarcity (they are the ones who ship the books, which are themselves a product, and hence valuable by their scarcity..), the ones who have to think harder are those who have content as their product. That’s EMI, iTunes, The Guardian…and museums. Why? Because as soon as you put something on the web, it can (and is) duplicated, copied, downloaded, mashed and borrowed…

To date, the general response to opening museum content up – and yes, *gasp*, maybe making it free has been, understandably, “er. what? our images [other stuff] – free? certainly not”.

Let’s unpick this a little bit more. Instead of free, substitute “more free” – think about museums actively encouraging people to “borrow” images with “embed this in your blog/myspace page” links next to any assets displayed on page. This is effectively what web browsers (and certainly Google Images) do anyway, with a simple right click / copy-paste. Extend it and you’ve got an API model – “use this content on your website”. We as a sector know very very well that this happens already – I’ve talked before about the 9% referral figure we used to get on the Science Museum website from MySpace: all from embedded images. The point here is that people are doing this already whether we like it or not.

This is a limited example, but the point is that some kind of disruption is required to make this new market work for us. In the music industry, companies like Amie Street are breaking valuable new ground by defining new business models for (music) content. In this example, music tracks start off cheap/free and get more expensive the more they are downloaded. It’s a brilliant and highly respected model.

For museums, one of the first barriers to overcome is understanding what value the long tail has – when no museums carry on-page advertising (correct me if you know of one), we’re hard pushed to ascribe value to a page view. We’re still as a sector struggling with the basic notions of how to measure success, let alone confident enough to suggest that the commercial models we have might be wrong, or at least flawed.

I’m not (at the moment!) suggesting that we should close all our picture library operations: what I am saying is that the historical tendancy to be closed, guarded and scarce simply doesn’t work. It’s not just that users “abuse” this already (and we’d be spending a LOT of futile time trying to prevent the MySpace 9% from embedding our images), it’s that there is something really rather important going on here. Museums – we’ve said it before – are completely at home in the long tail.

Somewhere along the line we’ll understand the importance of embracing rather than denying the proliferation of copying, pasting, borrowing. To get there we need to be better at understanding what value is, and that’s hard.

[* image: curious 1950's bloke outside Bath Habitat with a wicked foot-cranked guitar-playing machine and violin. Bet he hasn't considered music rights.]

Categories: conference · content · copyright · ecommerce · innovation · museum · ugc · web2.0
Tagged:

Teens, UGC, 59%: sorry, pardon?

December 24, 2007 · Leave a Comment

An extraordinary statistic just published in a Pew Internet report on content generation by teens seems to imply that the 1% rule is a little out of kilter with the reality of what’s going on among the yoof.

The report claims that 59% of American teenagers engage in at least one form of online content creation. As the comments on this TechCrunch post suggest, this does seem a highly dubious figure given our current expectations of engagement with UGC.

The report implies that 27% of those who do prosume also “maintain a personal web page” – apparently (if I’ve read this right), not including those who have created a MySpace or Facebook profile.

I’m not sure whether to read this as a good thing (”hey, UGC ain’t got such minimal takeup after all”) or whether it’s actually just false maths doing weird things for a good PR hit. After all, I guess you could count creating anything online (a profile on any social networking site, an avatar in Habbo Hotel, an email…?!) as UGC if you wanted to slant it that way.

Right. Enough. It’s Christmas Eve night and I’ve had it with being online.

My prediction for 2008? Global internet meltdown as the little-known 2008 bug comes into effect at 12:01 New Year’s Day. I’m already looking for a non-tech job and if you trust me, you should too.

Have fun :-)

Categories: content · ugc · web2.0

Tribebook?

December 2, 2007 · Leave a Comment

canoeThere’s a lovely article over on the New York Times about the parallels between Facebook and tribal culture, examining what makes Facebook so intriguing (read, “sticky”) to its users.

The main point made is that our friend-making in the “real” world is based around “orality” and not writing: furthermore, we examine ourselves through a lens defined by the people we know; in the same way we examine others based on the people that they know, and so on.

Apparently an early study in 1982 by someone called Reverend Ong examined the notion of what he coined “secondary orality” and looked at the connections between electronic forms of communication and “..the cadences of earlier oral cultures”: fundamentally the fact that many of the communications we now have via the web (and, thinking about it, IM, SMS and so on) are very much more oral in their nature, and moving away from “formal reading and writing”. The things which really resonate with us as humans are the comments on blogs, the quickfire status updates of Facebook or Twitter or a rapid succession of emails or IM between friends.

Of course the comparisons only go so far between tribalness and Facebookness – as the article says:

“There is presumably no tribal antecedent for popular Facebook rituals like “poking,” virtual sheep-tossing or drunk-dialing your friends.” 

…although maybe a new SuperWall action”chop a canoe for your friends” could go down well…?

Categories: museum · social networks · ugc · web2.0

spEak You’re bRanes

November 26, 2007 · Leave a Comment

In my continuing drive to see whether I am capable of browsing the entire web during my lifetime, I came across (actually, a friend posted it to Facebook..) ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com, a fantastically painful look at some of the incredible (read: worrying) stupidity and ignorance associated with the BBC’s Have Your Say section.

if you like it so much…If I was clever, I could probably say something deeply insightful about how the social commentary layered on top of a social commentary gave a truly interesting new perspective on the Social Graph, but to be honest I just find it blindingly funny…

Categories: community · content · irrelevant · ugc

UKSG seminar

November 23, 2007 · 2 Comments

I was in London yesterday, attending (and presenting at) a UKSG seminar: Caught up in Web 2.0? Practical implementations and creative solutions for librarians and publishers. It was a good event – I got to meet a couple of interesting people and also had a chance to hear from a couple of sectors (publishers and libraries) that I’m not that familiar with.

I intended to live blog but didn’t get round to finding someone for the WPA access code so will sling something more detailed up later on, but for now here’s my presentation:

Just as I was getting ready to speak, Andy Powell [Head of Eduserv Foundation] informed me that there are some standard presentation branding guidlines for Eduserv. Oops, sorry about that, marketing people :-)

Categories: library · museum · saas · ugc · web2.0
Tagged: ,

Launchball. Do interactives get any better?

September 24, 2007 · 17 Comments

I said in my last post that I’d be blogging about the new Launchpad interactive pretty soon. So here it is – the arrival of Launchball – the culmination of a huge amount of hard work by those fabulous fellows at the Science Museum, stunning Flash and visual stuff by digital marvels Preloaded and some stirling hardcore lifting back-end courtesy of Eduserv via the amazing CMS, Sitecore.

I worked on the fun (and easy) bit of this project – together with Daniel Evans, Frankie Roberto and Jane Audas we worked up the concepts, presented them to the wider Launchpad project board, user tested and honed them down into what you see today. Then because of my imminent departure, Mr Evans picked up the hard work of actually steering the project through to completion.

LaunchballThe challenge we faced in delivering this interactive was this: the Launchpad gallery is entirely a physical experience. It’s about bubbles, wheels, flashes of light, dynamos. The obvious (and also obviously wrong) approach would have been to do some kind of awful online version of that physical experience. A “pull this virtual lever to see the virtual bubble rise up through the virtual tube” kind of interactive. We knew, right from the off, that this was what we absolutely wanted to avoid.

The concept we came up with was to use a physics engine to demonstrate concepts which are abstract and yet physically real in some way. Conceptually this is incredibly strong, and we could see eyes lighting up across the content team from the first time we presented this approach.

Getting it from there to reality however could have gone badly wrong. Luckily, Preloaded pulled some extraordinary things out of the bag – the sounds, the UI, the sophistication of the graphics. And behind the scenes, the CMS holds all the content data as well as the layouts for each level which means editing stuff is very easy, as is (possibly in the future…?) letting others get at the XML layout data to build their own weird stuff as well. Chucking in the means for users to save and share their own levels was also an obvious but well-planned step which could well have fallen off the radar during “project panic” time. I’m terribly pleased that it didn’t.

So. That’s it. I’m willing to bet that this will go viral, big-time. Help by Digging it.

Categories: exhibition · games · museum · ugc · web2.0

Au revoir, Science Museum…

September 23, 2007 · 4 Comments

The 14th September 2007 marked the end of an era, for me anyway. I’ve been at NMSI, the National Museum of Science and Industry, for just over 7 years, and that was my last day.

I move on, as anyone does from a job they’ve lived and loved for that length of time, with a huge range of emotions. I’m terribly sad to no longer be attached to an institution with such vast public kudos. I’ll miss the people hugely – I’ve never worked with such an interesting, creative and open-minded bunch before. I’ll probably never work on such a huge range and variety of projects. But it’s time to go, and I’m delighted and excited about the future I’ve got coming up in Bath.

As part of this post, I thought I’d jot down three or four of the key developments in the history of NMSI online since August 2000 – mainly this is indulgence, but I thought it might also cast some light on how and why things changed over the years. Personally, I’ve learnt hugely important things about the web, people, the complex set of politics which exist in any institution of this size and scope, not to mention museums online and the vast range of technologies available to us.

This is, by the way, an entirely non-exhaustive history. One day I’ll get round to charting everything out, but today is not that day ;-)

I first started at the Science Museum back in August 2000. I’d left Waterstone’s online at that point in any job when you start twitching: It was hugely hard work, but I wasn’t learning anything new. At the time, I was massively excited by the opportunity of working at the best museum in London (sorry, but it’s true..), but also arrogant enough – the dotcom boom providing 2 or 3 job offers each week – to negotiate quite hard with the museum prior to an offer. I told them I wasn’t going to come along unless they increased the pittance of operational budget which was then allocated to web, and also find some additional people to help make it happen. They agreed.

The first few months were terrifying, but exhilarating. There was a lot of blagging on my part: at the time I knew nothing whatsoever about how to put together an agenda or chair a meeting. I’d never managed a budget (having just negotiated a bigger one, this was particularly daunting…). I had a server to look after (and knew nothing about server-side technology). I couldn’t code. I had a vision, but no people who could help me do it. The museum had just reached an impasse with an agency who will remain nameless who had built them an interestingly exotic(!) “CMS”. The site had just been re-designed but loads of snagging issues remained from the old site (wait for images to load for full effect!).

I muddled through. I bought books on ASP. I junked the CMS system the agency had built and installed my own homebuilt version (not particularly popular, that move, given what had been spent…). I patched up the server as it memory-leaked and limped its way from day to day. I did frightening things like find and replace the file extensions on the entire site to convert it to .asp…(and yes, I backed up first…)

Shortly after that, I persuaded Daniel Evans to come to the museum from Waterstone’s Online. He proved an incredible asset. Just after that, the dotcom boom crashed into the world of online bookselling and the 60-strong staff at W/O was “consolidated” into 3 or 4. We felt good having escaped.

Rolling out the CPS, or Content Publishing System – a simple VBScript application which let users around the museum edit their own content – was the first major milestone for us. It marked the point at which we seriously began handing ownership of the content to the organisation. At last, people started to appreciate why they should own and change their stuff. At the same time the system largely side-stepped the “resource bottleneck” which so often exists in web teams, but also left publishing control with the web team. We tried hard not to edit too much, and it also gave us a chance to prevent Comic Sans showing its horrible face on our site…

At around this time, I started working with Ann Borda (now at JISC) to develop a concept for what would later become Ingenious. It started life as “Science & Culture”. It’s interesting to note, given the vast remit (the first cross-NMSI project) and the huge timescale (over 3 years), that the very first sketches we presented were pretty much what we finally delivered in June 2004. This was the first lesson for me, and the first real resistance I developed to that all-pervasive museum treacle: projects are better done over short bursts, with small groups of stakeholders who are capable of moving fast and deciding quickly. It took huge energy (which to everyone’s credit, they retained over 3 long years) and quantities of strong coffee to make the site happen. Although it has very obvious shortfallings (second lesson: less really is more…), I’m still proud of what we achieved.

Making the Modern World Online followed soon afterwards. For the most part, this project ran outside the web team, but we had input on accessibility and design, and helped steer it (mostly) in a strategic direction which roughly followed what we wanted to achieve for the museum online. During this time, we worked hard on developing web policies and strategies to support us in everything we did. The key lesson we learnt here (it looks obvious now, but it was a revelation at the time..) was to align – 100% – all our strategic thinking with the goals of the organisation, literally drawing lines between what the wider business wanted to achieve and what web could do to support those goals. We coupled this with incredibly close work with the Visitor Research team. Third lesson: end users are the best friends you can possibly have, and will provide you with endless ammunitation to throw at the internal politics..

Next up was continued development of Sciencemuseumstore and then the launch of the Dana Centre. The original website for this was put together out of a small budget and little time, and this time we pushed forwards with more efficiency – although a small project we did it quickly with just a sidewards glance at the politics. The site was later re-built and relaunched by Frankie Roberto, the museums second Web Developer, and by gum it looks and works a whole lot better than it did the first time around…

Meanwhile, Daniel and Joe Cutting had started working on a vision for Antenna, our rapidly changing science news section. Initially, I have to be honest, I wasn’t 100% sure what exactly they were banging on about: XML and XSLT were new and mysterious things to me, and I couldn’t really see how they would help (cue sheepish grin..). Luckily they just got on with it rather than trying to explain it to me, and ended up writing a content system which revolutionised the way that the Antenna team edit and publish content. In brief, the system allows creation of a single XML-based content source which is then re-purposed to both web and gallery kiosks. Dan did some tests at some point and found that entire gallery stories could be built and published in around 12 minutes, a huge resource saving to the 2-3 days it was taking prior to that. The system is still in place today, and was really the pre-cursor to our understanding of how a good CMS system should capitalise on XML to deliver content to multiple channels. A similar approach was used by the agency who developed the fabulous Energy website, and continues to be the end-goal for Content Management at NMSI today: one “pot” of content delivering to gallery, web, mobile and anywhere else we choose…

Meanwhile, we were working hard on the Science Museum website, consolidating content, tidying up bad code, trying to CSS the whole thing. Behind the scenes, I was rallying for budget to re-develop it. Note “re-develop” rather than “re-design”: we knew we wanted to do something radical with the entire thing rather than just re-skin it: this is what we’d done in 2000 and apart from making it look better, it had still remained badly broken under the hood.

Eventually we got budget. The entire re-development project probably took about 3 years – again, far too long – but we remained incredibly enthusiastic with the vision we put together and the agencies we took on to do the work. The energy remained pretty high, which is always the most important thing. The new site went live on 26th March 2007. Beautiful, isn’t it?

At the same time (and looking back I can really see that we took on far too much in one go..) I was also working on putting together a vision for Content Management at NMSI. After a long procurement process we bought Sitecore, a fabulously powerful, standards-compliant .NET system. The ultimate, organisation-wide vision of building in Enterprise Content Management to everything content-related is still in its infancy at NMSI, but Web CM is the first, very visible starting point on that journey.

Of course we also continued to build in user generated content and new technologies wherever we could. Our web strategy took the organisational direction and applied UGC, drawing parallels between what our stakeholders wanted and what the web can usefully deliver. This ranged from SMS messaging during risqué Dana debates, encouraging visitors to bring in toys, a range of RSS feeds, allowing users to Ask Glenn – to mention but a few…

Next?

I have no doubts at all that web will continue to grow in importance and stature at NMSI. The vision, the environment, the beginnings I’ve had the privilege to be involved in – all point to an incredibly interesting future. I’ll be watching (with only occasional twinges of regret..) and undoubtedly blogging about it too.

The next huge thing on the immediate radar is the launch of Launchpad, the flagship hands-on gallery at the museum which is due to re-open – much bigger and improved – later in the year. I’ll be posting very, very soon about the online element of this. I’ve had the privilege of helping develop the concept for this and have watched it grow into something absolutely outstanding. It’s one of the best things I’ve seen for some time. But you’ll have to wait a little while before you too get to see it…

Categories: collections · community · content · experimental · folksonomy · innovation · mobile · museum · sms · technology · ugc · web2.0

Google: do our marketing for us

August 6, 2007 · 2 Comments

gmailI’m obviously coming really late to this (don’t you hate that?) because some people have been blogging about it for about ten days and there have already been 422 video responses already, but better late than never…

Google have asked users to “imagine how an email message travels around the world” – you print out a PDF of the “Gmail M-velope” and film a ten second clip showing the envelope entering the clip on the left and exiting on the right. Then you upload it to a specific YouTube page. Google do the rest, patching it all together.

It’s an incredibly simple, genius idea. Google get the most incredible viral marketing, huge quantities of press, vast amounts of public interest. They use existing tools which people are familiar with already; outlay is next to nothing apart from the selection and patching.

What’s great about this is that you really, really want to do it….don’t you? It’s a lovely example of UGC done right. Here’s how you enter (closes 13th August).

Right, that’s my evening ruined, then…

Categories: marketing · ugc · video · web2.0

Multiverse…Ning for 3d worlds

August 5, 2007 · 1 Comment

Last week Kurt Stuchell did a potentially interesting thing by setting up a Ning site for Museums. He called it the Museum and Educational Social Network (MESN) and so far it seems to be gathering some traction as a place to interact about all things Museumy. With Facebook on everybody’s lips and screens at the moment, the Social Networking Site has never seen so much action, and it’ll be interesting to see how/if MESN develops.

The nice thing here is that the investment – at least financial investment – is zero. Ning lets you create social networks for free, so you can sling something out there and see what interest it gets without any developer or design activity.

MultiverseTo date this has been a really big stumbling block for 3D worlds. Yes, you can create objects in Second Life for example, but you can’t create an entire environment which is yours and yours alone without having some really serious 6-zero figure in mind before you even start.

Multiverse is attempting to change that. On 2nd August, they announced the opening of their Virtual World Development Platform;

…a comprehensive software solution that gives development teams the technology, tools and assets to create virtual worlds for almost any purpose, including games and business tools…

Their business model is very Ning-like: they provide this platform for building 3D environments for free – the way they make money is by charging 10% of the end-user gross revenue. If there is any…

This is another fascinating slant on User Generated Content – as a business model, they will be relying almost entirely on end-users to cover their (presumably huge) original capital investment. As a self proclaimed Second Life cynic, (but addict of competing 3D social environment, There), it’ll be really interesting to see where this goes and how easy it *really* is to start building these kind of environments. I’ll play and let you know…

Categories: community · efsym2007 · museum · second life · social networks · ugc