Tag Archive for 'web 2.0'

Five videos to help explain the New Game in business

To be a winner in the New Game requires an understanding from the bottom to the top of an organisation that if you are going to make best use of people’s talents to provide the goods and services folks want, in the way they want, you will - sooner or later - have to embrace three key concepts:

  • Openness (of information, innovation and internal/external communication);
  • Collaboration (among diverse groups of people including employees, customers and communities);
  • Sustainability (since this is the only viable future for business and civilisation).

The web and advances in technology allow us to organise ourselves in a fundamentally different, and more productive way - bringing people and information beyond old boundaries together to solve the challenges we face as businesses, societies and an interdependent planet. Some sectors will have to face this challenge sooner than others, but the direction of change is now clear and even those who feel they have some years’ breathing space need to accept that change will hit every sector eventually, as nimbler competitors who “get it” emerge to challenge the status quo.

But among senior and not-so-senior people in traditional organisations who can see or sense the arrival of these changes, many feel they are a “generational thing”. They believe their current senior management and overarching culture just aren’t ready for these ideas, so they do not push the agenda, preferring instead to wait until some mythical young turk steps up to take the reins of the business. But push we must. Because even in organisations where change is likely to be slower, decisions you make now could impede your ability to succeed in future.

One reason many are reluctant to take on the mantle of ‘change agent’ is that they don’t feel they have appropriate ammunition or language to persuade sceptical boards and colleagues of the need to move in this direction. Well, here are five talks which provide a good primer on the key rules of the New Game. They do so with clarity and passion, as well as containing some great quotations and examples to counter detractors’ arguments, bring waverers on board and inspire.

1. Charles Leadbeater on Innovation (TED)

Business thinker Leadbeater explains back in 2005 why decentralisation, collaboration and openness are key to successful innovation, and why incremental innovation is not enough.

2. Clay Shirky on Institutions vs Collaboration (TED)

In another prescient 2005 talk, social media guru Shirky talks about how the social web will bring vast changes to the organisational landscape.

3. Ray Anderson on the case for Sustainable Business (TED)

Floor-tile entrepreneur and former environmental offender Anderson provides a compelling business, as well as moral, case for pursuing sustainable business. It’s worth watching in full, but those turned off by equations might like to forward to his conclusions, which start at the 9min 10sec mark.

4. Jeff Jarvis on “What Would Google Do?” (YouTube)

Author and journalist Jarvis gives a comprehensive talk on how businesses need to change, based on his book “What Would Google Do?”. There are some great concrete examples of game-changing ideas for different sectors.

5. Tim Berners-Lee on the “Next Web” (TED)

The fact  the inventor of the web has thrown his weight so passionately behind the idea of open, linked data is crucial - particularly since those you’re trying to convince will likely have heard of him. In other words, his is a highly credible name to drop when you’re making that New Game business case.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This

The solution to bad terms of service? Creative Commons and clarity

One of the big barriers in the way of commercial content creators (be they businesses or individuals) adopting web-based applications and services is the onerous terms and conditions these often present. Blanket ‘rights grab’ clauses are common, with even big names like Facebook and Google falling foul of the practice.

Talk to such companies and they brush off such terms as necessary legalese. You need to waive all your legal and moral rights to everything you post on/upload to/share with/create using their service, they say, because they need the right to handle your work and to copy and display it on the site without putting themselves at risk of breaching any laws. *Of course* they don’t intend to issue that song you posted as a chargeable digital download or use it as the soundtrack to an advertisement for their site without paying you. *Naturally* they’re not going to start flogging T-shirts based on that design you uploaded. And it would be *nonsense* to suggest they’d claim ownership over something you used their service to collaborate on with others.

It’s certainly true that if they did, they would likely face a wave of bad publicity and would probably also be on pretty dodgy legal ground, particularly if they’d given public assurances that their terms should not be interpreted in a particular way. But many have not made such assurances, and in some cases the threat of bad publicity might be outweighed by commercial advantages. If a business is on the brink of collapse, for example, there is a clear incentive for them (or for any organisation acquiring them, which may have entirely different values to those of the original founders) to attempt to claw back whatever revenue they can within the law.

That’s why anyone posting valuable content is going to be increasingly vigilant about exactly what they’re signing up to, as evidenced by this interesting and much-shared post from the Advancing Usability blog earlier this month, which compares the terms and conditions of video hosting sites in Canada. The lesson for service providers here is that if you want your social web application or service to attract professional content creators in future, you need to be clear that you’re not going to hijack their work. The problem is that legalese and plainspeak are mutually exclusive. In most cases, companies do not want to hijack users’ work, they simply want to cover their backs. But legal teams, used to the click-through-without-reading culture, seem to have got into the habit of being cautious to the point of complacency.

So how can service providers strike the right balance? The best example I’ve seen to date is from Aviary.com, an innovative start-up service offering a suite of web-based creative design apps. Aviary makes use of non-commercial Creative Commons licensing to ensure it has the permissions necessary to store and display creations users have posted publicly on the site without claiming commercial copyright over the works. Users also have the option to keep their work private if they choose, in which case the CC licence won’t be applied. When I spoke to Aviary co-founder Michael Galpert a few weeks ago, he told me: “We’re applying the CC licence to publicly-displayed works because we don’t want to be confrtonted with any legal problems. But in order for an artist to have full control over their work they will  sometimes want to retain full copyright, so we also give them that option.”

More importantly Aviary’s terms and conditions, while appearing in the usual legalese, are accompanied by a layperson-friendly sidebar clarifying exactly what those terms mean in practice. Galpert said: “Usually people assume because a lawyer’s approved something they can just slap it on their site. But the user or customer doesn’t necessarily understand the legal-speak. So even though a company might have their users’ rights in mind, it doesn’t come across that way when all that appears is a bunch of impenetrable jargon. Avi [Muchnick, co-founder and CEO] was intent on making our terms clear to everyone. Fortunately, he went to law school so he understands the legalese. When the document came back from the lawyers he slogged through the whole thing himself, translating it into everyday language to make sure it was legible for anyone coming to the site.”

The sidebar summary includes such unambiguous statements as:

  • “You own your content.”
  • “Some content may be licensed under Creative Commons.”
  • “If you allow another user to make a derivative, you still own your work.”
  • “You can download anything on the site for personal, non-commercial use only. Other uses are not OK (unless you purchased the work from the creator).”

My guess is that when presented with a choice of comparable services, users will increasingly opt for those displaying fair, clear and unambiguous terms like Aviary’s. Which gives me  heart  the trend will catch on. Who knows, perhaps the new game for lawyers might be to move away from their traditional plays of occlusion, obfuscation and obscurity. Now that really would be progress.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This