
Ah….summer reading!
Ah….summer reading!
My communities (Photo credit: steven w)
I was asked a really great question recently: what is a successful community manager?
I have a pretty well-formed idea of the answer, but had never articulated it before. My first reaction was to stay away from any kind of description of the community manager him/herself. I feel that a successful community manager is evidenced by the community they work with and for.
There is a justifiable lament in the air. It concerns the lack of actual conversation taking place between people. In the online world a large portion of our conversation has devolved into one-click LIKEs or, in the case of LinkedIn, Endorsements. No context. No qualification. No degree. No discussion. Either you LIKE/Endorse or you don’t. Life isn’t like that, by and large.
There is a justifiable lament in the air. It concerns the lack of actual conversation taking place between people. In the online world a large portion of our conversation has devolved into one-click LIKEs or, in the case of LinkedIn, Endorsements. No context. No qualification. No degree. No discussion. Either you LIKE/Endorse or you don’t. Life isn’t like that, by and large.
Image by aussiegall via Flickr
In my earlier post about the “glue” of collaboration, I spent the time describing the area of discussion and none about the actual measurement. That wasn’t exactly by design, as much as it was a realization that measuring collaboration means establishing some ground rules and accepting some risks and vagueness.
The ground rules are both simple and tough. Define what it is you’re trying to measure. I’m involved with that right now on my team and it is not easy. Objective measurement, as well as methodology, of collaboration and/or teamwork means setting up scales, deliverables, degrees of importance or weight (“So, was that assist worth a 5 or a 7?” and what does that mean?). There’s also the issue of whether this measurement applies to the group or to individuals and how you measure individual collaboration in a way that reduces the ability to game the system (“I’ll give you a +5 in the assessment if you give me one as well.”). Messy stuff….
Image by aussiegall via Flickr
In my earlier post about the “glue” of collaboration, I spent the time describing the area of discussion and none about the actual measurement. That wasn’t exactly by design, as much as it was a realization that measuring collaboration means establishing some ground rules and accepting some risks and vagueness.
The ground rules are both simple and tough. Define what it is you’re trying to measure. I’m involved with that right now on my team and it is not easy. Objective measurement, as well as methodology, of collaboration and/or teamwork means setting up scales, deliverables, degrees of importance or weight (“So, was that assist worth a 5 or a 7?” and what does that mean?). There’s also the issue of whether this measurement applies to the group or to individuals and how you measure individual collaboration in a way that reduces the ability to game the system (“I’ll give you a +5 in the assessment if you give me one as well.”). Messy stuff….
Image via Wikipedia
Thanks to the opportunity provided by my current class in the MCDM program, I have put together my first video. This has taken place despite my absolute novice skills in video editing (interestingly enough, shooting the scenes was fairly straight-forward for me).
Image via Wikipedia
Thanks to the opportunity provided by my current class in the MCDM program, I have put together my first video. This has taken place despite my absolute novice skills in video editing (interestingly enough, shooting the scenes was fairly straight-forward for me).
Image via CrunchBase
Analyst Laura Martin needs to lighten up. In assessing the evolution of content from TV-only to TV/Web mix (face it, my mother will NEVER watch her soaps on her laptop…) it is easy to see that the demand for quality content remains, regardless of device. The top-end owners of Hulu content (ABC=Disney, Fox=News Corp., NBC=GE…for now) are all invested in seeing profit from the venture. If they don’t, they are quite likely to pull their content, which is unlikely as they can sense the moving of the tectonic plates of media consumption and will not be caught off-guard.
And then there’s Comcast….
Image via CrunchBase
Analyst Laura Martin needs to lighten up. In assessing the evolution of content from TV-only to TV/Web mix (face it, my mother will NEVER watch her soaps on her laptop…) it is easy to see that the demand for quality content remains, regardless of device. The top-end owners of Hulu content (ABC=Disney, Fox=News Corp., NBC=GE…for now) are all invested in seeing profit from the venture. If they don’t, they are quite likely to pull their content, which is unlikely as they can sense the moving of the tectonic plates of media consumption and will not be caught off-guard.
And then there’s Comcast….