Comments on: If markets are conversations – if media will be conversations – then what do we do?

By: Rob Paterson

Rob Paterson — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:25:17 +0000

Thanks Paula – very helpful – we will be talking this through
Rob

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:32:42 +0000

The current design (http://www.ketc.org/yourstories/) is lacking 2.0 thinking. The conversation should be the feature…the ‘fixed’ information should be ‘teased’ to (it’s the exception…a ‘read once’ bit of content).

For best practice, see the space where the practitioners who design this stuff hang out — it’s all a conversation, and it’s a community (everyone can have an identity, if they choose): http://www.boxesandarrows.com/

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:28:06 +0000

Classic error in the current design…calling out a ‘blog’ as something separate. A blog is a technology, not an event. It supports a conversation…it’s not the justification to have one, nor can it ‘make’ one happen (as the current design supposes). The blog technology should support the exposed conversations (ala. the main page and/or teases into the latest comments on the right). See how the design practitioners in this space create their own publication and have everything as a conversation: http://www.boxesandarrows.com/

The current design misses the point altogether. It should be a ‘here’s what we’re talking about’. Every piece of content is a part of a conversation…don’t separate the conversations out by technology/channel. Add the technology into the ‘one-sided’ conversations. An easy fix to the current design, is to add 2.0 thinking. Get rid of the ‘link’ on the left to the ‘blog’ (navigation is ‘out’ in 2.0). Expose the most recent entries with titles, authors and first lines in a collection on the right.

A better fix is to expose more of what changes and less of what doesn’t. The ‘featured text’ (http://www.ketc.org/yourstories/) should really be minimized into a right column ‘tease’ to a full page further down. The actual conversation should be fully exposed on the main page.

By: Rob Paterson

Rob Paterson — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:17:30 +0000

Yes yes yes Paula – I especially like your last point. Hope to have more to say about that in a week – Thanks
Rob

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:11:15 +0000

Moreso in the case of public TV and radio, you’re very much talking about opportunities to create the ‘uber-experience’, a total experience, or the endless event (imagine what that would have looked like for Woodstock, but then again, it still could in retrospect — the closest thing is the collective story being composed on Wikipedia). The idea is to do varying levels of ‘uber-experience’ — being careful to decide how much attention can be dedicated internally. The rule of thumb might be to include this as part of any ‘campaign’ planning for a major event.

The other thing would be to be sensitive to early ‘noise’ about an event that the stations were not making much ado about, and make some quick adjustments.

One of the easiest ‘misses’ to fix is the fact that the media does not see each ‘piece’ that they publish as a conversation. For example, in the ‘Current/Fischer’ piece it does not have a conversational component at the bottom (ala, treating the ‘piece’ like a blog entry — it’s just a technology). For every magazine piece I read, I often have a comment I want to make, or a question I want to pose to the author. As long as comments are reviewed (again, requiring a commitment to having conversations — which isn’t a small thing, but is oh-so-relevant) they can be effective and make people feel ‘engaged’. And, if stored, analysis of the comments help to identify where the most energy lies and what the issues/concerns are.

The idea is not necessarily to ’start’ conversations. The idea is to open a channel for the conversations waiting to take place.