Passion without a harness

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Bill Wren

иконографияikoniWe hear and read all the time about how we have to be passionate about what we do and, yes, we do. It’s hard to generate enthusiasm in others if we don’t feel passion and it is also hard to hold our own interest in something if we aren’t passionate about.

But we have to keep a lid on it.

I’ve just written over 3,000 words (and growing) for something requiring 1,000 to 1,200 words. It feels as if I could go on forever, though I’m sure there is an end point somewhere.

All these words are a result of caring about the subject.

Here is the problem: It is never simply what you write that makes it work; it is also how you write about it. The “how” often means personalizing it. This works great guns for making something more immediate, accessible and interesting to readers. But it also leads you down paths you don’t need to go down. It can clog the delivery of what you are writing.

That we are interested — passionate — about a subject is great. But we have to keep the reader in mind.

In what I am currently writing, I need to find balance between the factual information I need to impart and the anecdotal, personal writing that makes it immediate and engaging. I need to stop writing and drop about 2,000 words!

It got so long because it is so interesting to me. I am so passionate about it, I want to deliver everything.

You can’t. No one will read it if I do; it will be too long and meandering.

We need passion in what we do but we also need to keep that passion in control. Passion without a harness to keep it in check becomes tedious, unfocused and far, far too long. It’s a horse without a rider.

I shall now assume my role as editor and begin the cutting process. :)

Leave a comment

Video and interesting backgrounds

Posted on August 10, 2011 by Bill Wren

икониMy last video was kind of awful mainly because it was a mash-up stitched together from a webcam, a Canon ZR850 and a Canon PowerShot. The first third probably could have been scrapped. Still, the tip about avoiding “the furtive glance” was valid, I think.

I have another video tip, this time about backgrounds, and it is a bit better though still not where it should probably be. (Still can’t resist mixing and matching source material). The tip is simple: video is visual so think of it and use it in those terms.

YouTube Preview Image

Also see:

Leave a comment

Video tip: Avoid the furtive glance

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Bill Wren

What happens when you bring together poor audio, shaky camera work, the editing skills of turtles and disheveled on-screen talent? Yet another video tip!

YouTube Preview Image

Also see:

????? ?? ??????

Leave a comment

Social media school and learning curves

Posted on August 1, 2011 by Bill Wren

(Most of what follows was written prior to reading Chris Brogan’s Social Media Fatigue. It would be a very different post had I read his post before writing this. But it seems serendipitous that my post and his should coincide.)

The entanglement of social media grows.

We all had to have blogs and then certain types of blogs, like WordPress. And then we all had to be on Facebook and not long after we all had to be on Twitter. This was followed by a need to be on foursquare and then an insistence we all have QR codes. Now we’ll all soon need to incorporate Google+ and so the entanglement grows.

Despite all our talk about simplicity and usability (the latter not so much anymore), we continue to impose layers of complexity on our social tools that entangle us like pretzels gone mad.

The irony is that much of that entanglement is a result of trying to keep things simple.

Our sites are littered with icons for the various social media platforms that are out there so a visitor can share a link with others. But it is getting to be like trying to buy shoes for walking or running at a sports store.

The walls are cluttered with hundreds to choose from. Some are for walking, some for running sprints, some for long distance, some for combinations of both, some may be for running in different time zones … and so on. And each comes in oodles of styles.

We stare at the walls blankly, overwhelmed by all the choices, and often end up saying, “I guess I didn’t need new shoes after all.”

I’m as guilty as the next person when it comes to layering complexity. Want to leave a comment? How would you like to do that? Use your Disqus account? Open ID? Facebook? Twitter? In theory, it is easier to just use one of those accounts. However, that ease is lost in the complexity of trying to decide just which one of all those social media platforms to use. You have to go through a grocery list of them.

And heaven help you if you assign different purposes to your various accounts and use one to comment or link when it’s intended for another account.

You could say one for all is best but then that works best if you’re a one trick pony: your business is your life or you have only one interest. I like social media items but I also like old movies. Most people I know that like old movies have only mild interest, at best, in following social media news. And most people I know that are interested in social media couldn’t give a damn about old movies.

It seems best to separate them but then that adds a level of complexity.

I suppose I could go on, but I think my point has been made. I also think there is a follow up post in the works because while I wrote the above yesterday, I didn’t look it over again until this morning after having read Chris Brogan’s post, Social Media Fatigue. I guess I’m one of those people he is referring to.

But the post and it’s point have me thinking because it has reminded me that the platform is secondary. What you write and why is the important thing.

Yes, I’m sure there is another post coming …икониПравославни икони

Leave a comment

Google makes social media interesting again

Posted on July 26, 2011 by Bill Wren

Google puts their focus on people.

I found myself wondering if Google might be the first company to actually get social media by focusing on the word social and realizing something was lacking in a big way in the world of social networks and technology generally. This was after having watched Andrew Keen’s interview about Google+ with Vic Gundotra (Google’s VP Social) and Bradley Horowitz (VP Product).

(See: Why Google Is Now A Social Company.)

Within the first ten minutes of the interview, as they gave a high level explanation of Google+, they spoke of communication and nuance. They talked about the differences between how people communicate in the real world, face to face, and how they do so online. They spoke about how they want to bridge that gap.

I don’t expect they will any time soon but the simple recognition that there is a big difference, and that online communication is a beggar’s version of real world communication, suggests a number of things, including an implicit acknowledgement that Google has made a big internal change in how they view technology and what is important. (In my last post I referred to how Google had never been a non-tech audience friendly company.)

It also suggests they have an advantage no other online company has: recognition that the time for baubles and wishful thinking is over. It’s time to acknowledge the limitations of digital technology and deliver the goods, as in a true digital model of real world communication, such as its nuances.

Consider all the senses that are in play when communicating in the real world and then consider what is available with technology: sight and sound, both of which are limited.

When I speak to someone in person I have so much more information flooding into my brain and being processed. I see their eyes, facial expressions, their body language and the full environment surrounding them that conditions all of that. I even smell them. I can touch them.

Why are they speaking so quietly? Is it because it is an intimate conversation? You might think so unless you’re able to turn around and see the two people sleeping behind you.

What happens when someone has a camera in front of him? If you’re taking a picture, they pose. In other words, they don’t present themselves; they present how they would like to be perceived.

Almost everyone behaves differently in front of a video camera – some are embarrassed, some act up and some, even professionals, become a presentation. Few people are their usual selves.

What digital communication delivers is a simulacra of the real thing. Communications involves so many things and to date technology has just scratched the surface. Communications isn’t just about exchanging messages; it’s also how those messages are presented.

Appearances to the contrary, technology around social media has been stalled for quite some time. This is partly why we spend so much time discussing the business end of it – market share, revenue models and so on. It has become pretty tedious simply following updated versions of products that add a few more doo-dads and greater capacity.

Google is the first, that I am aware of, that is talking about fundamentally changing not just social media but technology itself. That a company so engineer driven and so artifact focused would announce this kind of change in their approach – in the way they actually view technology, putting the emphasis on people and how we behave rather than the technology – is remarkable.

It also signals a fundamental shift with some absolutely amazing potential.

Suddenly, communications is interesting again.

(Thanks to Jeff Roach for directing me to the interview.)

Leave a comment