Is CNN manipulating the YouTube Presidential debate?

Should CNN by using editorial control in selecting YouTube questions for the US Presidential debate? That's the topic in a recent Wired article titled, CNN-YouTube Debate Producer Doubts the Wisdom of the Crowd.


Wired provides arguments on both sides of the debate. I suspect most 2.0 enthusiasts will disagree with me on this, but I think CNN should have some editorial control. Surowiecki's "wisdom of crowds" is a powerful concept, BUT it only works when the crowd is aligned on the objective. Unfortunately, people have other agendas and motivations then those that the may have posed the initial question. This is an important lesson learned from swarm theory.


Applied to the CNN debate, CNN may be looking for the most thought-provoking intellectually stimulating questions but the respondents may have a different agenda. They may be looking for the most entertaining and humorous questions. Unfortunately, these 2 different objectives may not align. The Wired article quotes the CNN SVP David Bohrman (pictured here with political director Sam Feist) stating that the previous debates most viewed questions were 1) Whether Arnold Schwarzenegger was a cyborg sent to save the planet Earth? and 2) Will you a convene a national meeting on UFOs?


There are several examples of "hijacking" including the piece I wrote about on the CBC's Great Canadian Wish, that seem to lend it's support to CNN.


The challenge though becomes how much editorial control should CNN have? According to the Huffington Post's Marty Kaplan, CNN is going beyond filtering the "jokes" and is stacking the debate by purposefully rejecting several 'authentic' videos. CNN defends themselves by stating that these questions were "planted" and "manipulated" and don't really represent what the voting population really want to see.


Personally, I don't see a "perfect" process that would properly seek out the wisdom of crowds via social media to help the rest of the nation make the best decisions.


How would you propose CNN handle this?

Or do you think social media isn't appropriate at all?

Web 2.0: The decline of society?

Andrew Keen was recently on a TVO interview, "Do we all now worship at the cult of the amateur? Andrew Keen on how Web 2.0 is undermining professionalism, knowledge, and authority" that my friend Tony had forwarded to me.

Andrew explained his view on the dark side of the Internet and web 2.0. He is not against the Internet but believes web 2.0 is leading to the decay of culture through it's narcissistic ideals that allow anyone to publish content without concern for the depth or prioritization of the content. He used Wikipedia as an example, and to his credit, he conceded that the quality relative to Britannica was not the concern here but prioritization (or lack thereof) of content within Wikipedia was the real issue.

Keen argues that Britannica's value is through it's central editorial body which prioritizes the work of scientists such as Marie Curie ahead of pop icons like Pamela Anderson and therefore helps us realize what is truly important to society as a whole. He went on to say, the impact on today's youth, this lack of prioritization from seemingly "reliable" sources of information, is the decay in culture and prioritization. We are failing an entire generation by not providing them a prioritized way to understand the world around them. Without the ability to distinguish "well written" and "well researched" content, our youth will forget the past, mis-prioritize content and be ill equipped to further contribute and refine our society.

I didn't find his argument particularly persuasive. Let's assume, that Wikipedia did not exist. In fact, let's assume "Web 2.0" doesn't exist. According to Keen, we should be better off right? Mass media which is centrally edited would prioritize content for us. Well, let's look at that. Think about the ridiculous amount of time, "respected" authorities of content such as CNN, spent on trivial but salacious "news". Do you recall how many times we were forced to hear about Anna Nicole Smith? How about Britney Spears? I can guarantee that if it weren't for mass media, my awareness of these things would be almost nil, in fact those "young impressionable" minds are being taught by mass media that this is "important" and that lines between news and entertainment do not matter. How many "entertainment" shows do we need on TV? If we could count on editorial prioritization to evolve culture then why do we see a story about what a pop icon is wearing to an awards show, right beside a story on a high-school shooting on an "Entertainment" show?!?! Where is the "improved" editorial prioritization?

But at least Britannica would hold the truth right? Possibly true. But the truth is only as valuable as those who read it and understand it. We can't blame web 2.0 for why Marie Curie isn't the most sought after article in Britannica or Wikipedia.

The discussion had similar elements to a Mesh session I had attended earlier this year. I also know several "web 2.0" evangelists have already criticized Keen's work. I do think there are some underlying truths however. For example, I like his points around "anonymity". This mask unfortunately let's people publish content with no accountability. Perhaps anonymity is a topic for a different day. The interview did make me consider another point, the need for critical thinking. Something that needs to be taught and emphasized. And something I believe is at risk. Information is "too easy" to come by and there is so much of it out there. You will be able to find support for anything you wish to argue on the Internet. The challenge is to know how to evaluate those arguments, and seek counter arguments for a complete understanding and informed decision making.

That's one of the reasons, I am very proud to have recently been invited to join the advisers for TakingITGlobal. This non-profit organization provides youth with an opportunity to be informed, become inspired, inspire others and to get involved in causes that they can learn about. It's not about any one specific "cause". It's about empowering our youth to drive positive change and evolve society and to think. It's an opportunity that, outside of web 2.0, would have been extremely difficult to do. It provides youth with a global voice and an opportunity to be part of the conversation not just consumers of pre-determined content.

To think web 2.0 will solve the worlds' problems is overly idealistic, but so is the notion that web 2.0 is the beginning of the decline of our global society. The answer is somewhere in between. What I do know is that regardless of where you get your content or who provides it, you need to think critically about it. Is it more important now? I'd suggest it's always been important.

How to benefit from "Not Listenting to the Customer".

Seth Godin recently posted an article called "Making Your Customers Uncomfortable" in which he explains the upside of making your customers uncomfortable. As proof points, he uses examples of Black Friday and Southwest Airlines.


It reminded me of Betty Crocker & General Mill's story about how they had "invented" a scientific marvel that allowed homemakers to create great tasting cakes in a fraction of the time. The invention... "Cake Mix". Just add water, mix and bake!


After all, don't consumers want ease and simplicity? Then why didn't it sell originally? Perhaps the quality wasn't good. Well, according to their market research, the quality (taste) of the cakes in blind studies rated very highly in comparison to cakes made from scratch. So what seems to be the problem? Foodtimeline provides this piece of information..


"General Mills considered the market research of the business psychologists Dr. Burleigh Gardner and Dr. Ernest Dichter to explain the mediocre sales of cake mixes. The problem, according to the psychologists, was eggs. Dichter, in particular, believed that powdered eggs, often used in cake mixes, should be left out, so women could add a few fresh eggs into the batter, giving them a sense of creative contribution. He believed...that baking a cake was an act of love on the woman's part; a cake mix that only needed water cheapened that love. Whether the psychologists were right, or whether cakes made with fresh eggs simply taste better than cakes made with dried eggs, General Mills decided to play up the fact that Betty Crocker's cake mixes did not contain...dried eggs of any kind...Before long, cake mix started to gain some acceptance and notoriety."

Interesting how forcing the customer to do more work, so they have to add eggs to the mix resulted in greater sales.


I also met with a gentlemen from Synectics, an innovation organization that has consulted with Starbucks. They had explained that when asking consumers what they wanted from Starbucks, they would get the responses, "Faster Service, Lower Costs, Higher Quality". The standard responses... So why is that we still wait in line at Starbucks and pay high prices? Have they not been able to figure it out?

Well, according to Synectics, the real thing customers wanted were moments of indulgence.

If Starbucks took customer responses at face value and sped the line up or lowered their costs, they would have reduced the already short "moment" and cheapened the "indulgence". Understanding deeper has provided Starbucks their winning formula.


Perhaps the title for this post is a little misleading... Perhaps the real title should have been, "How to really listen to the customer beyond what they say and achieve the results even at their 'discomfort'. In any case, think twice before assuming "the customer is always right".

Facebook Fatigue

I am tired.

I am tired of how much Facebook is discussed on the web 2.0 blogs out there. I'll be the first to admit that I am a Facebook addict and I've written several articles referencing it. But web 2.0 is so much more than Facebook.

As of late, it just seems to be everywhere. Perhaps it's the Microsoft investment, or the responses from Google on OpenSocial. Whatever it is, I am tired of it. To be honest, I really am bored by the recent direction Zuckerberg has taken. It just seems everything is tied to advertising and if Facebook is the poster child for web 2.0, I fear we're going to miss out on a lot.

I can't really blame them. Google stock continues to grow and advertising has been very very good to them. Why wouldn't Facebook follow suit? Perhaps I am just in a funk, and I will find Facebook enlightenment again. Although, I am starting to read other similar posts that have the same tone. Nicholas Carr has a good post, "The Social Graft" with his typical tongue-in-cheek style which also seems to question Facebook's direction (or was that arrogance?).

No doubt, there will be more to come. What do you think about Facebook dominance in web 2.0 discussions as of late? Too much? Too little? Don't care? Some questions to ponder as I close off yet another post about Facebook.

The Millennials will alter how we work

Today, myself and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to chat with about 100 grade 9 students. It was the annual "take our kids to work" day. I know the intent of this is to show students what work is like, but I have to admit I was eager to learn from them and test whether they were aware of how they will and already have changed the way we work. With 80,000,000 millennials born in North America there is no doubt we need to listen and learn.

So much is being written about millennials and the "war for talent" these days. One of my favourite articles is a white paper published by New Paradigm on the Net Generation. In it they provide some specific recommendations for companies on how to attract millennials and how to retain them.

In my discussion today, I showed several "enterprise 2.0" concepts... A thought struck me as I was demonstrating how we are using these enterprise 2.0 tools...for them it's really 1.0! There is no "change" per se... It's just always been that way.

The opportunity to express yourself digitally, to obtain information on-demand, to multi-multi-task, to have fun is simply how they operate. When I asked them why a company would consider using "Facebook", they got it immediately. It's about collaborating, sharing information on your terms, keeping relationships. I didn't need to "persuade" them. They started telling me statistics on Facebook and it's adoption in Canada was nearly 15%.

I even showed illustrations of SecondLife and virtual reality and asked them why a company would even consider this. I heard back instantly... "Because it's fun." Interestingly enough, one of the chaperone's replied with disbelief, "Why would anyone consider virtual worlds?". That concept of fun and work don't intersect will not hold up for this generation.

So it was a fun day, and to be honest, I didn't get the feeling they understood the impact they will have on work... But then again they're still only in grade 9.... And for them... it just is.