Online friends aren’t just for facebook…

Reading about the Obama’s new media campaign and listening to our online campaign guru guest speaker, Tim Tagaris this week, I was amazed by the organizational structure and depth of tactics available to campaigns in the digital age. But perhaps what amazed me most was their ability to turn supporters into friends…including, but not limited to facebook.

Coming from a grassroots campaign background myself, I always approached the task of crafting an email by asking myself, “how can I get them to read this?” I felt good about my average open rate (47%) when I read the non-profit statistics from 2007-2008 (16-17%). I had the advantage of working on issues at the very local level and for limited periods, raising individual’s identification with the issues and reducing fatigue. I poured my energy into drafting succinct, action-oriented messages and updates that kept people’s attention with interesting images. My goal to get supporters to open (and read) my email after the emails from their son at college, weekly bridge group and college friends. In other words, I hoped to be at the top of the list after the personal emails. What I realized while reading about the Obama campaign, however, was I had it wrong. I should have been focusing less on securing my spot after the personal emails and more on becoming the personal emails.

The Obama campaign is an incredible example of making politics personal. Their use of video both transported supporters around the country with the campaign and humanized the campaign staff through “heart-to-heart” type updates. Sitting in their offices or living rooms, supporters were trained to feel valued, feel important and feel included. The casual tone of email, the targeted messaging, the use of timely text messaging…all contributed. It was a well-coordinated and masterfully created reality-TV-like story in which supporters grew to know and feel part of what was going on.

While my informative and utilitarian emails could definitely have learned from this personalizing story approach, I think that the take-away for highly local elections or issue campaigns needs tweaking a bit. What the Obama campaign did was essentially build the feeling of a local campaign at a national level. On a local campaign, for instance, the candidate or the campaign manager often stops by phone banks and joins volunteers for precinct walks, thanking and energizing volunteers. Supporters get that buzz by going to rallies or campaign meetings, reading their friend’s letter to the editor, interacting with the campaign staff or watching supporter IDs grow on a large cheesy paper thermometer. The campaign already has a personal face that is built in person. There is no doubt that a complimentary online campaign could add to the efforts, but at what cost? Would it scale? Would the time lost in creating the personal experience offline be made up online?

I was interested to hear our speaker, Tim Tagaris talk about his experience because he has had great success using the Internet to buoy underdog candidates in smaller campaigns (one anti-war Iraq War vet running for House seat in Illinois and the other the Lieberman/Lamont Senate race). Both of these campaigns had great success online, although mostly focused on fundraising rather than organizing like the full-blown Obama campaign. This success surprised me as just the week before we had discussed in class how online campaigns have a hard time scaling below the national level. Interestingly, Tim’s campaigns seemed to be a strange hybrid – local or statewide elections that due to the political environment and Iraq War focus, rose to national prominence. In these examples, the online efforts served as a way to get people involved from all over the country and the organizing was still left to the offline field staff. The value add was still mostly on a national level, growing the pool of interested supporters who can contribute monetarily. I was left with my questions of the value of a full-blown online strategy at the local level.

I would love to see the statistics on Obama for America’s click-through rates. They raised $656 million online, but from how many people? If it is anything like the rates non-profits experienced in 2007-2008, it’s less than .2%. If you apply that to a mayor’s race in a city with a population of 150,000 or even a state like Connecticut, population 3,510,297, you don’t make a dent in the kind of money that is needed to win (a donation rate of .5% giving $10 of the entire population of Conneticut would result in $175,515 – Lamont spent $17 million).

I’m sure after the next major election cycle, more will be written about the use of new media in local campaigns, but for now, the take-away for me is…do what we knows works – make it personal, make it about a friendship with the campaign whether online or offline and look to the Obama campaign for innovative inspiration to figure out what else a campaign might consider in its strategic cost-benefit analysis.

The Power (and Problems) with Groundswell

Reading Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies (a book mainly on corporate marketing) brought up a lot of questions for me. For sake of blog brevity, I will focus on just two – “mission control” and listening as research.

By entering the groundswell* one gives up control of their message. This scares companies, non-profits and all of the institutions operating under the classic strategy maintaining control of their image. Groundswell makes the case that this doesn’t have to be so. That unleashing the power of customer-driven media (whether through blogs, social networks, reviews, etc.) web-marketing can surpass classic strategies. The authors at one point, however, quickly brush over an failure of this model telling the story of Wal-Mart’s facebook page getting co-opted from back-to-school decor marketing group to a forum for attacking Wal-Mart’s bad business practices. They offer no real practical advice on how to prevent or at least predict this. But what happens when you give up message control and lose “mission control?”

The Wal-Mart example reminded me of an event that happened at Kiva.org while I was working with them. Kiva Friends is Kiva’s very active social network of microfinance (and specifically Kiva) enthusiasts. They are, for the most part, a wonderful active group who add value to the Kiva community. Many volunteer as translators, editors, etc. They are ambassadors across the web and off. They are a great source of feedback and informal posting and much more. Generally they share the Kiva mission 100%. One day one of the Friends saw a post from the fellow in Mozambique about how a borrower she had visited was disabled and had trouble getting around. The Kiva Friends started discussing this on their discussion boards and soon a plan was hatched to send this woman a wheelchair. They would just need her information from Kiva.

Problem: Kiva’s mission is clear. They help people help themselves through microloans. They are not charity and believe strongly in their model that empowers through responsibility rather than creating dependence through handouts. The wheelchair, however needed, was a handout. Kiva worried about what precedent this would set with their partners in Mozambique. Had this been one letter from a supporter or even 100 letters from separate supporters, Kiva could have ignored it, but through the Friends’ network they had communication with one another and were a forceful group who was becoming louder and louder in their criticism of Kiva. They could not be ignored.

I was impressed with Kiva’s handling of this issue. They engaged in the debate including the fellow who had made the original post and a representative from the microfinance bank in mozambique. Kiva explained their hesitance and asked for thoughts in response. The feeling from the Friends was ultimately that they wanted to send the wheelchair anyway. The question for Kiva: would they let the Friends hijack their mission and core principles? In the end, there was compromise. The Friends got the address to send the chair, but it was made clear by Kiva to the entire community that this was an effort by the Friends and not Kiva. They turned it into a way to discuss their mission, further strengthening their core while showing that they trusted their supporters enough to engage with them in debate and take responsibility for their own actions. I’m left wondering, however, on what happened to Wal-Mart’s facebook page…can’t find it or anything that talks about how this issue was concluded.

The second thing that I thought was blog-worthy in the book was this concept of using the groundswell as a focus group. The authors suggest that online reviews and/or discussion groups among other things, can be a useful market research tool and that companies will benefit from listening (and responding with action). This raised a question for me, however, about the self-selective nature of online activity. If only 18% of people participate in discussion groups and 11% post reviews and rating in the US, it’s not really something on which to base major strategic direction. An example we discussed in class is the issue of newspapers. When polled, most youth (who are reading the paper online) would turn down a free subscription. It is likely a safe assumption that this group, with their propensity to the Internet, would be more likely to participate in online marketing tools. How would this skew effect the messages that were been sent to the company?

The newspaper example is, of course, an extreme case and for the sake of making a point, but it seems to me that someone wanting to use the power of the groundswell would also need to understand who are the ones they are “listening to” in the context of their full customer base. Online/offline news enthusiasm is linked tech savvy, but income, employment status, literacy, religion, access to a computer/Internet and a whole host of factors could play a role (particularly as this theory is applied to an international context. It would seem that to be a truly useful tool that could stand alone, a company would need to collect demographic data on their users as well to figure out not only what portion of their customer base is represented online, but also which portion. My work in politics has shown me that the loudest people often represent the minority with the most extreme views. I’m not sure that groundswell completely flips that trend on its head. Reviews for instance – how many people post that something is average? Not that many.

* The groundswell is the social phenomenon born out of Web 2.0 that has shifted the way the world works.

Web 2.0 & Open Source: What High School Students Have Known for Years

In response to this week’s technical readings for my Media, Power, Politics and the Digital Age class, I found myself constantly relating Web 2.0 and the open source model of software development and content to the social dynamics of a high school party. The following is my attempt to illustrate that what makes the open source kick ass, is much like what makes a great high school party. (I’m going out on an academic limb here so hope it works…)

A Tale of Two Parties

Michael’s parents were out of town. He was always jealous of his high school peers who were inevitably chatting about what had happened at Saturday nights “rager.” Since he wasn’t the coolest of kids, Michael was rarely (well, never) invited and decided this weekend was his opportunity, an open door, his in. He started telling people there would be a party at his house Saturday night.

Michael started preparing Saturday morning. He set up the stereo and made a mix of his favorite songs, put out some pretzels that wouldn’t leave his guests’ fingers all greasy and hung a sign across the stairs reading, “No entry beyond this point.” His friends arrived around 7pm for some pizza and a pre-party briefing. They would help Michael keep things “under control.”

Around 8:30 people began arriving. It was early, but he turned on the mix starting with Lee Ann Rimes. People had brought alcohol as Michael had expected and they were talking and laughing. “This party was going to be great,” he thought. Then someone walked over to the stereo and started looking through the iPod. “No, please don’t touch that,” Michael said. “There’s a party mix playing…and leave the volume alone, its set just so the neighbors can’t hear.” Just then Michael looked over and someone had brought chips and was wiping their greasy hands on the sofa. “No,” Michael cried, “There are pretzels that are less greasy. If you don’t like pretzels, I’ll see what else is in the fridge, give me 10 minutes, I’ll get you something.” On the way to the kitchen Michael saw his friend in an argument with a couple he had caught trying to go up the stairs. “You’re really not allowed up there,” Michael said. “If that is a problem you can leave and go find another party.” Michael said this, confident that there were no other parties that night. And why would they want to leave? Miley Cyrus was up next on the mix. This party was great by design. He had spent a lot of time figuring out what people would like at a party. A little later he’d get everyone going on a game of spin-the-bottle.

Suddenly everyone started streaming out of Michael’s house. Someone had called Craig, the infamous “partier,” often the hot topic on Monday mornings. His parents had gone out of town at the last minute and he had decided to open his house up to the school. With an empty living room Michael and his friends decided to head over to Craig’s and figure out why their venue had lost its guest to this impromptu party. Craig was lazy – he probably didn’t put all the thought and work into creating a party atmosphere that Michael had.

When Michael arrived at Craig’s he saw what appeared to him to be chaos. A group of kids were standing around the stereo changing their mp3 players in and out, sometimes not even waiting for a break in the song. At one point the speakers started cutting in and out. Craig didn’t know how to fix it, but thankfully one of the kids was a whiz with electronics and the faulty wiring was as good as new in a few minutes. Many kids had brought various snacks. One guy even had ice cream that was melting all over. “I wouldn’t let that in my house,” thought Michael. “What a mess!” Then some girls came over flirtatiously dipping their fingers in the ice cream and licking it off. Michael was mesmerized. His attention broken only by Craig yelling out, “Everyone having fun?” There was a resounding “Yeah!” called out in response before craig continued to announce that Robbie had brought some ping pong balls and a game of beer pong would be starting up in the dining room for anyone interested. There was a cheer and a bunch of kids went to play. Others stayed where they were or went outside, as Craig had requested, to smoke some cigars that made them feel “mature”. Michael overheard a boy from his chemistry class on the phone, “This party kicks ass, man! Come on over and bring whoever! The more the merrier.”

So what advice would Tim O’Reilly and Eric Raymond, authors of “What is Web 2.0” and “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” have for poor Michael? Let it go.

Web 2.0 and crowd sourcing are a success (like good high school parties) because they leash collective knowledge and enthusiasm, at the expense of control. Michael’s party was a flop because he limited freedom and prescribed what people could and could not do – fine for a 8-year old’s birthday, but not optimal for a group who was experienced enough to know what they want and how to do it. Had Michael let go, everything might not have been perfect, but crowd would have contributed and collaborated to enhance the evening. Like Wikipedia there would likely have been problems, but guest/users would have policed the party in the best interest of the whole. The result would have been more like Craig’s free-flowing party that had a lot more to offer or Wikipedia that is more comprehensive and interesting than that dusty encyclopedia on the shelf or even an Encarta CD-Rom from 2008. Example: Encarta doesn’t have a page of information on my hometown of 29,964 residents. Yelp is the same. I can’t think of the last time I looked at the yellow pages. Why would I when I can get data rich information on businesses full of both numerical ratings (1-5 stars) and qualitative reviews. All I learn from the yellow pages is who exists and who is willing to spend money on advertisements.

Craig : Michael :: Wikipedia : Encarta :: The Yellow Pages : Yelp

Even in cases where *some* control is introduced through a central moderating body or set of suggested guidelines (like Craig’s party request that smoking be done outside), the Web 2.0 model launches Internet applications and other products to the top. The iPhone, for instance, would have offered little more than the functionality of a good looking Blackberry had it not opened part of its code to developers to create the apps and join the proverbial party. As a result, today there are 88,330 applications for your iPhone serving the head and the long tail. Apple doesn’t have the staff to create this magnitude of programs serving a seemingly endless range of interests and geographic needs, but random people all over the country and world collectively do. It is especially impressive that the number has jumped from just over 50,000 since June 2009. At that time the iPhone’s app selection already dwarfed Google’s 4,900 apps, 1,088 Nokia apps, 1,030 BlackBerry apps, and 18 apps for Palm. (When was the last time you heard of someone buying a Palm? Point made.)

Craig : Michael :: iPhone: Palm

My basic take-away seems to be that the conceptual innovations Web 2.0 and crowd sourcing has introduced to the Internet is not new to social dynamics, but new to business, political and media dynamics. High school students have known these things for decades. The tech geeks seem to have gotten it and now the businessmen, politicians and media outlets just need to catch up and they too will have something that “people can’t stop talking about on Monday.”

The Video Killed the Radio Star, Will Journalism Fall to the Internet?

We’ve been discussing in my Media, Politics, Power & the Digital Age class about how the Internet is effecting journalism and how traditional print media sources are coping with the changing landscape. The most basic issue seems to be that the classic newspaper business model (based on subscriptions, circulation based advertising and classifieds) is no longer working in a world where young people turn down free subscriptions in favor of reading news online, craigslist and eBay offer unlimited space and images to post your classifieds and most advertisers are holding on to old strategies and resisting the move to online marketing. As a result, newspaper outlets are struggling, closing down bureaus, laying off reporters and not investing much money in investigative journalism.

The big question: Is the fall of the newspaper as we know it negatively effecting our society or can the new opportunities presented through the Internet improve on what we’ve got today?

Some offer up social media or citizen journalism as an answer. With the innovations in blogging platforms that make it easy for anyone to put information on the web, there is a plethora of sites available to those seeking news. No matter what you demographic or interest, it is likely you can find something for you! While citizen journalism isn’t often living up to professional standards of journalistic writing and research, it offers more – there are pages and pages insights, opinions and information. Of course, the sources need to be navigated with a critical eye, but once one finds reliable sources of interest, repeat visits are the norm.

One thing that scares me about the proliferation of news sources on the Internet, however, is this idea of the “Digital Me.” This is the concept that with almost infinite options and niche sites serving the long tail of interests and perspectives, that people can quite comfortable satisfy all of their news cravings through outlets that provide information through their lens. This is present in other forms of media as well (e.g. Fox News watchers and fans of MSNBC), but with even smaller niches being served by bloggers and websites that provide access vast amounts of news with a certain bent, media consumers, can create a news experience on the web that fails to challenge any of their thoughts, and perhaps more importantly supports their opinions regardless of how flawed or simplistic or one-sided. It’s comfortable. It’s easy. The appeal is clear, but so is the danger.

Americans are often criticizing countries with totalitarian regimes who control media, but I would argue that there is a good possibility that the polarizing effect of the Digital Me could be similarly destructive for democracy. If people stop being exposed to alternate opinions and lose the ability to critically assess information for themselves (instead or relying on a trusted few to do it for them), what does that mean for our future ability to work together as a nation, make compromises and ultimately move forward in a united way? Even I, who likes to think of myself at being good at seeing issues from various perspectives, falls into the trap of dismissing Fox News and right-wing talk radio because of my own leanings. But when was the last time I listened to them? Uh… Instead I go to my news sources of choice and feel somehow “more enlightened” walking around with my friends and our NPR coffee mugs we got in the last pledge drive. The rise of the Digital Me will only exacerbate this phenomenon, providing more content and more polarized content to news seekers every minute.

Another possible solution to the journalism question is that of public or non-profit models for news. (My favorite…hence the mug) NPR is a natural model to look at for this. According to NPR’s website, 27.5 million Americans listen to them each week and 31% of their operating costs come from donations. The rest comes from corporate donations, governments support and a variety of other sources. Kevin Kelly (another “tech thinker”) offers the suggestion that an artist needs only 1,000 Fans to sustain himself for a year. While the 1,000 number might not be right on, the basic premise that if one has a large group of people who value a product, if each of them buys something (or donates) a small amount, the aggregated amount is enough to sustain 1 artist for a year. NPR works on a similar concept, asking each of their 27.5 million listeners to donate what they can to pay their staff spread out around localities across the country. So far they’ve made it work. I suppose the only question would be if this is to be a viable option for journalism moving forward, is there enough economic potential support to sustain multiple outlets?

The challenge for the public/non-profit model would seem to keep the staff and overhead costs small and really focus on a niche market that has a clear base to draw from OR like with OffTheBus, a citizen powered campaign news site during the 2008 presidential campaign, use the limited funds to pay professional journalists to manage volunteers, or citizen journalists. While OffTheBus was an incredible operation during the election and had twelve thousand volunteers of varying journalistic skills covering news throughout the nation, I wonder what level of volunteer journalism is possible outside of a highly charged campaign season. During this election cycle activism and engagement was unusually high across the board. If OffTheBus had continued, could it have generated enough sustained interest or would it slowly lose its steam like the Korean site, OhMyNews that used to capture 25% of the Korean news seekers and has reportedly tailed off significatnly ! The current OffTheBus site reads “A New Era Begins” and says it will continue by incorporating citizen journalism into OffTheBus’s parent organization, The Huffington Post. But the page fails to link anywhere or show where this “next step” for OffTheBus might be. In a quick Internet search I found a craigslist ad for a “citizen journalism internship” at the Post, but The last post on the site that is clearly citizen generated is from November 7, 2008 – almost a year ago at this point.

Having worked with dozens of volunteer organizations and local politics I know, firsthand, how severe volunteer drop-off can be after a cycle. Having a “big event” a group is pushing towards (like an election) is a great motivator in the short-term, but once it passes, a collective desire to “take a break” often results in the effective end of an organization. I worked on some campaigns, for instance, where the campaign leadership decided not to be involved the next time the same issue was on the ballot (even 4-6 years later) due to fatigue. They had burned too bright and pushed too hard and the organizations lost them. Perhaps it was the same for OffTheBus. Unfortunately, it seems it takes an event of significant proportions to get the critical mass needed to make this model work on a large scale. Is this model critically flawed then? Is there a central issue/event that is large enough to draw the consistent volunteer power needed without burning out the volunteers?

Lastly, there is a possibility for new specifically Internet-tailored corporate news models will emerge. All of the major newspapers are invested in keeping themselves relevant and profitable. Additionally, new ideas are popping up. One of the more interesting examples is Sharesleuth.com where Dallas Mavericks’ owner, Mark Cuban pays an investigative journalist to research overvalued companies, short sells the stock and then breaks the story on the net (driving the price of the stock down and his profit up). While this business model is unsavory and raises serious questions around ethics, there is still value in the information that is being uncovered. Cuban is also 100% transparent about his motivation for publishing these works of financial investigative journalism. One could argue that exposing his opportunistic motives on his site is a lot more transparent than closed-door NYT editorial decisions about what articles do or do not make the cut and why. Is purposely seeking out existing fraud to capitalize on it any more unethical than killing a story that shows your biggest advertiser in a bad light?

In conclusion, Clay Shirkey, of NYU’s graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, suggests that “Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.” While the transition will likely be rough in spots with various models entering and exiting the journalism scene, the addition of new ideas and voices made possible by the Internet and crowd sourcing, will bring a freshness to the traditional media we have been limited to to date.

“Say Everything”: My Thoughts

As I read through this week’s assigned “Say Everything: How Blogging Began, What It’s Becoming, and Why It Matters” by Scott Rosenberg, I felt as though I were being transported through the Internet itself – through the bandwidth bumping from California to Kansas to Pennsylvania, Baghdad and beyond. It seemed that each chapter connect to another which enabled a third that drew inspiration from the first – all while moving the the story of the Internet as a web of connectivity forward.

Example: Inspired by Silicon Valley’s Dave Weiner’s publishing software, John Barger, in Chicago, published his first post on what he termed a “weblog” and helped build a trend towards using webpages to collect and share cool links. Dropping the “w” in keeping with a running joke of the growing web community, Evan Williams and Meg Hourihan, in San Francisco, built Blogger, a web form that allowed for the quick and easy “friction-free publishing.” Google, a company that based search results on authority created by links like John Bargers, bought Blogger who’s web forms enabled journalists, like Josh Marshall in Washington D.C. to challenge conventional media and influence election outcomes. Josh Marshall, however, wasn’t the first journalist to shift over to the web. He was following the lead of others like Dan Gillmor, a columnist for the San Jose Mercury, who had been encouraged into his blogging experiment by Dave Weiner.

Each chapter, although very different in its scope, continued a running theme: connectivity – the human kind. The sobering fact is that despite all the skillfully woven stories in this 362 page book, it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the connectivity story. It is precisely this (how technology can be used to enhance lives around our globe and bring people together) that to that fuels my academic and personal interest in technology.

When I was looking for a volunteer project during my career break, Kiva.org’s person-to-person lending through the Internet was a major driving force behind my decision to apply for and accept their fellowship. I liked how Premal, Matt and Jessica (Kiva’s founders) had figured out how to use the Internet to enhance microfinance lending in over 40 countries. (Microfance was interesting, but I really was drawn to the human aspect of this exchange.) While in reality Kiva’s social connectivity, is mostly one way (not too many yam wholesalers on the net), I wanted to be part of making that connection happen in a more meaningful way (posting business updates and digital pictures). I still remember the excitement the day I walked in to interview a man who had taken a loan to buy a more efficient generator for his Internet cafe – Cookey. He had printed out a picture of his Kiva provide which he had found Googling himself, and seemed to think it was a pretty cool that he could see the people who had loaned to him all around the world. I typed up Cookey’s story, took a brief video on my flip and as a pilot experiment, sent out this update to everyone who had loaned to an entrepreneur through the same partner bank in Nigeria. To make the world smaller, that email, sent from Nigeria in the summer of 2008, went to my now professor, Nicco, more than a year before I would write for permission to join his class at the Kennedy School in Boston. Again, I experienced the rush of connectivity.

The potential seems endless. I’ve been checking out organizations and thinking up ways that blogs, discussion groups, multi-media sites, etc. could be used to solve conflicts (my other main area of interest). The ideas are flowing and reading the accomplishments made throughout “Say Everything” gets my adrenaline flowing – I just want to get out there and do it! However, Rosenberg, also built in words of caution that are especially pertinent for someone like me who wants to explore the possibilities of using social media and other technologies to create dialog…what unexpected pitfalls might we face in this new media frontier? How might they be exacerbated by situations that come pre-packed with tension and propensities for misunderstanding?

It’s not all success stories. There are some hard-to-swallow lessons learned in this new digital age (and the book). Heather Armstrong gained fame by overestimating anonymity, alienating her family and losing her job. Justin Hall realized that while he was fine with “saying everything,” his partner might not be. Dave Weiner was the center of controversy and hateful comments when embroiled in an online debate. In my own life, my friend, Tristen, who works with tweens and teens at Girls, Inc. finds herself running programs to teach girls about treating each other with respect, not just on the playground, but on the Internet as well (cyber-bullying is a growing problem and hateful rumors spread faster with facebook and listserves that through the conventional word of mouth). The Internet allows for not only the good things to spread quickly, but also the bad.

Blogging, as discussed in “Say Everything,” presents an exciting view of where we have come from while providing nuggets of tempered wisdom. I look forward to drawing on both as I continue you my exploration of this web of connectivity.

“Tings Dey Happen” Going to Nigeria!

Anyone who has ever talked to me about Dan Hoyle’s “Tings Dey Happen,” knows that it is possibly one of my favorite theater pieces ever. It is both magical as Hoyle transforms himself into everything from a drunken Scottish oilman to a Nigerian warlord in this one-man show and in its ability to deliver knowledge about the complex Niger Delta conflict.

I was so excited to hear that “Tings Dey Happen” is being sponsored by the State Department to go to Nigeria as part of their anti-corruption campaign! Dan will perform in 5 cities and the hope is to attract audience members “from all levels of society, including Nigerian government officials, multinational oil company managers, civil society groups, artists and intellectuals, as well as the motorbike drivers, bus conductors, roadside preachers, market women, day laborers, aspiring entrepreneurs, youth group leaders and fisherman…large groups of Chevron employees, anti-Chevron activists, Deutsch Bank Oil Analysts, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International Board Members, U.S. and Nigerian government officials, African journalists, and Nigerian expatriates.” I haven’t been able to find any information anywhere about how exactly they plan to do that (as theater isn’t exactly on the radar of Nigerian motorbike drivers and day laborers), but the concept is exciting and I hope there is a plan in place.

If you are unfamiliar, watch this short trailer…

Tings Dey Happen trailer – Dan Hoyle – Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

I wish I were in San Francisco for the event (11/5) following Dan’s return to the US when he will speak at the Marsh about how the play was received in Nigeria. If you can go, please report back! Good news is that there is a rumor about a possible documentary that will come out of the trip!

One disappointment is that the State Department is not allowing Hoyle to travel with his show to the Delta itself (Wari or Port Harcourt) “due to the security situation.” I understand the heightened risk when government is involved, but I think it is a shame that if this theatrical mission is aimed at opening dialog in Nigeria about the conflict, that people who live in the heart will not be able to participate.

Vali Nasr | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

It was fun to watch Professor Nasr on the Daily Show last night – a little dry…just like class. How do you possibly capture an entire book in a few seconds? Well worth a read if you have a desire to learn more about his economic theory behind making moving the Muslim World toward moderate and open international policies!

more about "Vali Nasr | The Daily Show | Comedy C…", posted with vodpod

Thoughts on Translation

One of the coolest concepts for a website I’ve come across in the past few months is Meedan.net. It is a sight that posts new from the Middle East and translates news articles and comments back and forth between English and Arabic – an incredible opportunity for conversation across borders and cultures. Meedan says it is currently targeting the Arab-Western relationships to help balance the post-9/11 mindset.

I say “one of the coolest concepts“, however, because I have been really disappointed by the participation. Most comments are translations of headlines from other news sources around the world all posted by a few people. It doesn’t seem to have picked up much momentum. I wonder why.

-Are people afraid to participate in this forum of “hot” topics despite the relative sense of security often provided by the Internet?

-Has Meedan.net failed to market sufficiently and create a base of participants to start a snow-ball effect? Could they do better at tapping in to existing social networking sites?

-Are people getting their fill of cross-cultural dialog elsewhere or do they not have any “fill” at all.

It’s not money or the clout. Meedan.net is backed by the Cisco Systems Foundation, Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, to name a few. They also have an impressive list of people on their board.

Take a look at the site and let me know what you think…

On a side note, after seeing the below picture, I was glad to see that while it uses computer-assisted translation, Meedan.net still uses real people to keep the communication flowing.

Vali Nasr on the Daily Show!

Looking forward to next Tuesday when my professor, Vali Nasr, will be on the Daily Show discussing his new book Forces of Fortune.

Tuesday 9/22 @ 11 PM!

Birds on the Wires

I had to post this! It is truly amazing what happens when technology and creativity meet. …to the future and applying this kind of thinking to everything from art to economics to peace to our environment!

more about "Birds on the Wires", posted with vodpod