Your “Three-And-A-Half-Minute Sweet Spots of Web-Time”
We live in a digital environment characterized by increasing information overload and attention deprivation and, like it or not, we are captives in an evolving web-based and web-defined pop culture from which few can escape. The notion of social capital generally refers to the value of our human relationships but remains largely a default metaphor for the value of networking that can’t be quantified. Social capital wants to be measured, but we don’t know how to do it. Why is measuring social capital according to “sweet spots” important? How we deal with these sweet spots may well change our lives, both individually and collectively.
Stewart Brand, creator of The Whole Earth Catalog, observed several decades ago that information that wants to be free, becomes free. And Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail, presents a compelling case in his recent Wired magazine article (to become a book in 2009) that in a world driven by ”freeconomics”, music that wants to be free, becomes free. Likewise, social capital that wants to be measured, becomes measured; and we can harness all of these accelerating forces of self-organization to our advantage if we can identify and use the full power of our most effective sweet spots of time on the web.
Before we can measure social capital in our digital culture, at least three elements–networks, content, and time–must work together in harmony so that social capital can be easily created, stored, and exchanged. On the web, time is the element most taken-for-granted in the exercise to establish measurable values. The web is basically a series of network connections between transmitting and receiving nodes. Every second that you are on the web, you are receiving or transmitting signals and noise. It is likely that more than 99% of the time, from your perspective, you are on the receiving end of mostly noise and only occasionally content that is relevant to you. You create social capital on the web only when you transmit what is considered relevant content by a defined number of receivers in one or more interconnecting networks.
Time is the only true common denominator that we all have in equal measure and value most in life. During your entire life, your effective web-time will likely be less than a million minutes (say, an average of 1 hour a day X 365 days X 40 years = 876,000 minutes). Although we often hear predictions about the profound impact that the web will have on our lives, very few actually calculate how much time we, as individuals, will actually be on the web based on reasonable assumptions. In both receiving and transmitting web content, 876,000 minutes of web-time is not a lot–so use those minutes wisely
Clay Shirky, a long-time student of web-dynamics, suggested in his widely read and discussed article on ”Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality” that the web cascades according to a power law, largely driven by supernodes. Supernodes are connectors of networks (rather than individuals), who replicate content according to a multiplication table rather counting fingers and toes. The filtering function of supernodes creates by design or result a selective pattern of web-usage that has now become known as “the long tail”. In order to participate in nature’s ordering of her complexity, you should strive to be a supernode yourself or attract other supernodes as often as possible by creating relevant web-content using the “sweet spots” of web-time that I propose are best positioned to pass the de facto filter test of our time-constrained pop culture.
The sweet spot of digital data that “wants to be” multiplied (rather than discarded as noise or merely added in onesy/twosy fashion) through network connections is content that can be experienced in discrete units of time during a unique web session. I suggest that 30 seconds is too short and 10 minutes is too long to maintain your attention on the web when you are in “time-conscious” mode. Because your total lifetime experience on the web(!) is probably less than 900,000 minutes as demonstrated above, you want to do everything in a hurry (to just get the gist and move on, maybe return later, more likely not, always chasing the new, new thing). Based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, a more reasonable period of time to transmit and receive web-values in our fast-paced digital culture is somewhere between 2 and 5 minutes. Let’s split the difference, for now, and say that 3.5 minutes may be the “optimum” period - to listen to one song or read a blog that has the potential for “accelerated self-organization” (which is just another way to describe the operation of power laws in nature). Web-content packaged in short sweet spots of time that are just long enough are amenable to multiplication rather addition (geometric vs. arithmetic growth).
The web-time needed to listen to an artist’s album or a fan’s playlist with appreciation, or to read a detailed article with understanding, is too long and, let’s face it, this will rarely happen. Why would this be so? Even utilizing three-and-a-half-minute “optimal web-units” means that you only have time to check out about 250,000 sweet spots of comprehensible content (both good and bad) on the web during your entire life! [876,000/3.5 = 250,286]. I’ll wager that because cyberspace is infinite, you thought you would have boundless time to explore it and find all the good stuff to your heart and mind’s delight. If more than 99% of your time on the web is receiving noise or content not relevant to you (see point 2 above), the sweet spots of the “good stuff” may be even a small fraction of these, say, 250,000 optimal web-units during your entire life. Holy Smoke! How do we change the math?
As a transmitting node on the web, you have only about three-and-a-half-minutes to have your music heard, blog read, or media presentation absorbed to hook a receiving node to repeat it, save it, or pass it on. Clearly, just saying “check out my stuff” is not enough. At the same time, “hooking” a receiving node or two does not trigger the multiplier effect initiated by supernodes. Supernodes perform a key role in measuring social capital by acting as de facto filters for the good stuff that comes packaged in sweet spots of web-time.
Due to the dynamics of networks, all these sweet spots of content that “hook” (think, X) are being transmitted and received simultaneously in mind-boggling complexity with the “opposite of X” (that is, web-content that is essentially noise to be filtered rather than replicated). In this milieu, what web participants connect and replicate in actual fact are the “sweet spots that hook.” These sweep spots are capable of being measured as optimal web-units and, thus, are measured. This process of accelerated self-organization seems to be circular, but don’t worry about it. Just remember that the optimal elements of social capital on the web (based upon the constituent framing elements of time, content, and connectivity) self-emerge and we will deserve the future that we create.
Your job on the net, if you choose to accept it, is to find your own sweet spots–both as a creator and supernode filter.
My three-and-a-half-minutes are up. Unless, of course, you choose to re-read this, save it, or pass it on.
Kevin Kelly, the founding executive editor of Wired magazine, consistently adds insight on how to cope with our rapidly evolving digital culture. Since survival in the “long tail” environment is a major concern of indie artists, it is not surprising that Kelly’s web-article on “1000 True Fans“, first posted on March 4, 2008, has gone viral in the blogosphere. If you are not part of the group that caused this phenomenon, you should certainly read the article now because it is relevant to you as a passionate stakeholder in the future of music.
I view with wonder both the adulation and controversy created by Kelly’s article. Its title, “1000 True Fans”, is only a metaphorical benchmark, yet it is precisely because it is a powerful and easy to grasp symbol that many fail to get Kelly’s basic premise, which is reflected in his simple and true statement, “Direct fans are best.” The key word to tag here is direct.
Kelly frames his 1000 True Fans formulation as follows: if your True Fans (and 1000 is a feasible number) spend one day’s wages per year of, say, $100 in support of what you do as an artist, that sums up to $100,000 per year–which is a living for most after deducting modest expenses. Kelly stresses that the key challenge for an artist is to maintain direct contact with their True Fans who can provide them with a living through multiple revenue streams if they “cultivate” the “direct support using new technology”. These “diehard fans” will be surrounded by “concentric circles of Lesser Fans.”
While Kelly’s perspective certainly resonates in broad terms, $100,000 per year would be a dream come true for most struggling artists with day jobs and who are on the verge of giving up on their dreams of making any money at all. The contra-Kelly view that $100,000 per annum is not an easy task to achieve (in acquisition or maintenance) is well presented in Scalzi’s article on “The Problem of 1000 True Fans“, which artists and music fans should also read. However, most critics overlook the important point that Kelly uses the “formalized” term “1000 True Fans” to represent a process or path rather than a specific result. As Kelly states, the “actual number is not critical”, it’s the “mid-way haven” where you “make a living instead of a fortune” that is “a much saner destination [for artists-in-the-making] to hope for”.
So let’s take Kelly’s notion of using technology to obtain the direct support of True Fans to find a good “home for creatives in between poverty and stardom” and break it down into some workable baby-steps first. That is, before artists give up their day jobs, let’s look at the process to make, say, $1000 per year, to see if we can find the “sweet spot” of focus as artists try to create aesthetic values that should, somehow, generate a return commensurate with the value created.
First, consider the following range of possibilities on how to make a thousand bucks. All of these formulations are based on some simple mathematics and immutable economics that markets clear according to supply and demand for value created:
1.) 10 fans x $100 = $1000 [this reflects on a smaller scale the “one-to-one business model” of “direct contact” that Kelly favors to acquire True Fans, defined as “someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce”.]
2.) 100 fans x $10 = $1000 [this reflects the “one-to-few business model”, being the inner-circle of Lesser Fans in Kelly’s formulation of “concentric circles” on their way to becoming True Fans willing to part with more money as more value-added direct connections are made. NB: this was the “album-centric model of the major labels (multiplied by millions of fans rather than 100) in the good ol’ days (or bad ol’ days depending on your perspective).]
3.) 1000 fans x $1 = $1000 [this reflects the “one-to-many business model”, being Kelly’s concurrent process of nurturing “many more Lesser Fans” as you acquire True Fans. NB: this is the core of the “one-price fits all” iTunes model currently pushed by Apple (multiplied by millions rather than 1000) but morphing as Apple makes its real margins on iPod sales.]
4.) 10,000 fans x 10 cents = $1000 [this reflects the “many-to-many business model”, that Kelly suggests may be higher up “the narrow and unlikely peaks” of the long tail. NB: this “marginal pricing to zero” is essentially the environment of “music for free” that is currently forcing artists to search for other business models that generate, somehow, returns commensurate with value extended.]
If you have earned your Master of Business Reality, you will note in the foregoing formulations the countervailing trade-offs between generating “high margins” ($100) and “high velocity” ($1) as the primary revenue driver. But, let’s face it, margins vs. velocity is only a theoretical framing exercise for most artists. It is exceedingly difficult to get anyone to part with a hundred bucks, except maybe family and close friends. Equally, when artists are just starting out, it is difficult to get a thousand folks to part with a buck. And we know that even when downloads are free, an artist will likely not get 10,000 people to take them. Where then, indeed, do you find the “sweet spot” of your focus if any and all of the foregoing business models seem to be difficult to achieve for artists just getting started or artists who have always struggled to make a financial breakthrough? I believe that even on a smaller scale of revenue possibilities, Kelly has the right answer.
For indie artists, the key take-aways from Kelly’s article (or what he calls the “gist of 1000 True Fans”) are his observations [emphasis added], “To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans…the technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle [of direct contact, feedback, and love] possible.”
What Kelly is saying in his prescient and now famous article is that even within the long tail environment fostered by new technologies, there are practical opportunities for artists to make a living by focusing on “the heads within the tails” rather than the stardom of the “heads within the heads.” This is accomplished by using the power of “the very technology that creates the long tail” to establish direct rather than indirect connections. The reason this sounds familiar is that it is the very same reason we are all here.
Last week Time Warner’s AOL, getting somewhat long-of-tooth in the digital age, announced the $850 million acquisition of Bebo, described as the third largest online social networking site after MySpace and Facebook. This major web-related M&A deal comes on the heels of the proposed $44.6 billion take-over of “web pioneer” Yahoo by Microsoft (or the ultimate combination of Yahoo with another large corporate or private equity aggregator that Yahoo prefers in order to retain its iconoclastic persona , to the extent it still may exist).
I just learned that “Bebo” is a backronym (love that word) for “Blog early, blog often”. Indeed, early-adoption and frequent, even obsessive, participation may well be a necessity for developing a sustainable identity and voice on the Web.
The recent deals by the Masters of Universal (read: suits) are centered around projected future revenues streams derived from high velocity “web-action” not yet proven to be capable of monetization. To justify the hefty amounts involved in the recent M&A transactions, fiduciary and shareholder pressures will force the suits in these hierarchic organizations to try to commercialize and monetize the activity within the still “protected walls” of the acquired “networks” in competition against one another.
This arms-race to commercialization by each of the major web-oriented players operating behind their own protected gardens is based on a dubious proposition. Most of the existing online social networks (MySpace, Facebook, and Bebo) and others are already only one “OpenSocial” click apart. This one-click is, for now, a barrier to seamless connectivity–but the walls are about to be breached. The techno-gunslingers, an independent breed of giant killers nurturing their magic bean-stalks in their garages everywhere, are developing a multitude of schemes to merge online activity across networks. This will increase the rush to monetization and the web frenzy.
Within a few short months we will have de facto convergence into the Mother-of-All-Social-Networks, the effective consolidation of Bebo, MySpace, Facebook, and most other platforms in cyber-space. This motha will be big, wild, and woolly–and cluttered with commercialization. What happens then?
There are already a mind-boggling eight million (8,000,000!!!) bands registered on MySpace alone–with duplicate satellite pages created by musicians at “OppositeOfMySpace” for redundancy and reach, and the numbers keep growing. The 1) pressures for mass-based commercialization and monetization of web-action by the major players and 2) convergence of all music sites described above, encompassing established artists, indie artists, and artists-in-the-making, will present (as usual) both crisis and opportunity.
Netizens use the web in two operating modes. 99% of the time (it is probably more) we are in “passive” mode, and 1% of the time we are in “active” mode (blogging early and often, whatever). It is a no-brainer that it is better to be in active mode as a player rather than a passive observer if one chooses to enter the digital arena. If, as an artist, you are unable or unwilling to increase the amount of time to project your true identity and voice on the web, you should align yourself with those you trust, your most passionate fans and intermediaries/facilitators, who will “be-bo” on your behalf if you give them the proper incentive.
How do you project your identity and voice on the web effectively? Let’s frame this issue for possible resolution in terms of 1) “signal” and “noise” in the broad context of 2) linkages operating within a hierarchy of networks within networks (within networks–you get the picture). You must create nuanced identity and voice to fit network context ranging from “small groups” to linkages in a hierarchy interconnected by “super-nodes”. In communications theory and in life, what is “noise” (spam) to some, may be “signal” (a valuable communication or network connection) to others–depending on what part of a hierarchy of networks you are dealing with. Even spam sucks for some, but not necessarily for others. As the techno-slingers like to say, this is a non-trivial exercise. Again, without a calibrated incentive/disincentive system, the complexity of this undertaking would defy resolution.
There are elements of “value” in our activities as economic and social beings that cannot be quantified with the same level of precision as financial capital (i.e., money). For now, we call these things of value “social capital,” in contradistinction to “spam” on the one side with little or no value and “tangible capital” on the other side that clearly, and by definition, is value that can be created, stored, and exchanged–Economics 101.
Our inability to quantify social capital gets to the very heart of the dilemma facing indie artists: the wild and woolly web in process of infinite expansion at the same time that Mr. Big is trying to consolidate and commercialize the web-action, a process that most indie artists as iconoclasts find antithetical to every fiber of their being.
When convergence takes place, we should strive to develop at our Nightschool a better way for indie artists to create, store, and exchange social capital which is, for now, a default metaphor for things of value that cannot be measured. Just one notion that seems to be heading in the right direction is the concept of SocialBuxx™, a well-articulated quantitative approach to “keep score” and maintain some semblance of order without surrendering to Mr. Big. To be sure, trying to quantify an elusive intangible to become a de facto standard may well be quixotic–and some have noted with insight that it may take the magic out of creation and discovery. Nevertheless, in my view, excellence is the absence of disorder without unrelieved uniformity, and we should do our utmost to establish this condition as we individually seek to develop our identity and voice on the Web.
In Vol 1, No. 1 of Rolling Stone (November 9, 1967–price: twenty-five cents), the then underground publication self-described as “The Revolution Chronicled By Revolutionaries”, there is a Letter from the Editor that states in part:
“We have begun a new publication reflecting what we see are the changes in rock and roll and the changes related to rock and roll. Because the trade papers have become so inaccurate and irrelevant, and because the fan magazines are an anachronism, fashioned in the mold of myth and nonsense, we hope that we have something here for the artists and the industry, and every person who ‘believes in the magic that can set you free.’
“Rolling Stone is not just about music, but also about the things and attitudes that the music embraces. We’ve been working quite hard on it and we hope you can dig it. To describe it any further would be difficult without sounding like bullshit, and bullshit is like gathering moss.”
-Jann Wenner
Rolling Stone is itself chronicled in Wikipedia and has, to me, gone from underground to mainstream and thus represents both the promise and failed possibilities of an epoch-defining period. The second period of dramatic disruption is occurring right now.
Paul Resnikoff at Digital Music News described the insidious lack of trust that is plaguing the music industry today. I thought it apt in these acrimonious times to post a few observations at our collective Nightschool concerning the evolution of “trust” and “honor” in music.
While looking at the business side of the music industry, I see an entire ecosystem that has lost its compass, morally and economically. The RS Revolution (version 1) failed to gain headway and the lack of direction is creating both hardship and opportunity for existing Artists and Artists-in-the-making. It is time to disaggregate the old music ecosystem. And perhaps this time, the Music Uprising will take hold.
I. Resurrection of Trust in Music
At thecapitalclinic, I found that, by looking at the negative side of things, you can find the positive side hidden underneath and in contradistinction. What I see all around me in the music industry in transformation is a lack of trust among the constituent parts of the system, the Artists, Fans, and the necessary Intermediaries/Facilitators. I, thus, ask myself: How can Trust be resurrected in the presumptively segmented society in which we now find ourselves? I have spoken long and often about the importance of communication links and supernodes in an digital world and the emergence of alternative forms of capital to “keep score” (and we will get back to these themes), but for today, I would like to focus on the importance of ritual honor in restoring trust.
II. Ritual Honor In Music
David Fricke, senior editor at Rolling Stone, has been described as one of the “most passionate, influential and knowledgeable music writers” in the industry and, to me, his observation that “buying music is a social transaction” provides the key to resolve the current artist/music industry dilemma of “digital for free”. Since Fricke works for Rolling Stone, we might call the new revolution (music uprising) RS Revolution (version 2). Let us elaborate at our Nightschool.
Fricke’s insight is blindingly simple: the traditional buy/sell relationship between artist and fan as a one-time market transaction is DEAD; however, the continuing artist/fan relationship itself is very much ALIVE, but conditionally.
How to monetize a continuing social relationship as opposed to a singular commercial one is then just a matter of elegant execution that can take a myriad of forms, depending on how industrious and clever Jenny and Johnny are.
Once you move outside of the single buy/sell market (i.e, a price-driven or price-led supply/demand) paradigm to a broader artist/fan relationship in a hybrid digital/personal context, the world of possibilities opens up to increase the velocity of your social capital.
A “social transaction” that transcends a sale of a product but is more akin to the ritual exchange of honor given for honor received may well cut the Gordian knot that has constrained the development of the music industry for decades and trust will be resurrected.
