Just back from Amsterdam where I had the chance to speak at the Next Web conference on the topic, "Communicating in the Relationship Economy". A big thanks to the guys in white suits for the opportunity and the chance to meet and schmooze with the Amsterdam start-up universe.
As I put together my thoughts last week, I noticed a lot of talk on the meaning and impact behind the social software tools we are embracing. Liz Strauss discussed whether we now have two webs: information and relationships? JP chimed in and over in another section of blogland Ken, Ayelet and others were discussing the "realness" of these relationships.
I think all these discussions are fascinating, but in the end, Tomato: Tomatoe. We don't think about HOW we exchange information with our mailman or if this relationship is REAL or how deep. It just IS. The same can [sort of] be said about the online world. The difference [a very big difference] being speed, geography and quantity.
David Weinberger called it Continuous Partial Friendship. I've referred to it as Continuous Partial Community [thank you Linda]. I think Lisa Reichelt captures it best with Ambient Intimacy. This phrase does away with the inevitable question - how can we maintain all these 'friendships' and 'communities'?- by not referring to these words at all.
We do not yet have the language to describe the nature of these relationships, so we use the same metaphors from the real world. Same thing we did with good ole Web 1.0 by referring to links on sites as "web pages" - they aren't pages any more than someone I link to on a social network is the same as a friend from kindergarten. When we get bogged down in semantics we miss the point: It doesn't matter! They are connections and we never know how or when they will come into play.
I found an old post by Chris Locke that referred to this as Relationship Bricolage. I like that. A bricoleur is someone who uses objects in new and unintended ways and I think that is exactly how we are currently connecting and communicating online.
I have been thinking a lot about HOW we behave in this new hyper-connected universe and the skills we need. I call it WEAVING - where the medium is the relationship. We weave a tapestry of connectedness. We weave between networks, blogs, IM, Skype etc. We currently have too many tools and log-ins and communities to deal with - but I have faith that this will indeed work itself out. The Facebook API is just the first recognition of our new weaving behavior.
In the context of business, companies will need to start learning how to weave in order to be successful in a hyper-connected universe. Whether they are in marketing, product development, operations or customer service, if they are not weaving they will get left behind. This is a skill that will be required across the organization - whether they are community managers, evangelists, product managers or operations.
Here's my preso from the show. No real notes (I use examples ad-hoc), but hopefully you will get the idea.
Note: My original idea to talk about Weaving as it applies across networks and the realtionship of company and customer came from conversations with Valdis Krebs and the work he and his team are doing for organizations. Check out Network Weaving blog for more.
Hi Debora, thanks for putting some slides online so I can share your thoughts with my colleagues..
I must say it was an clear and inspiring presentation..
Posted by: thaisie | June 06, 2007 at 02:23 AM
It amazes me how a whole cottage industry is building upon such old concepts. I've always had my money on the conversation. What a tangled web we weave, indeed. If you ever want to chat, I'd love that.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | June 06, 2007 at 04:05 AM
Deb, that is the MOST beautiful -- from an art design/perspective -- presentation that I have seen in a long time. The content is great too. Also, thanks for quoting me.
Posted by: Valdis | June 06, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Hi Deborah:
Great post and amazing presentation. I especially liked the sentence: "You never know which of your online contacts can impact you when and how". It is true that we try to define online relationships in the same way that we define real life relationships and that's simply not the case.
Posted by: Ayelet | June 06, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Hey guys - glad you like it. You all were woven into my thoughts. I am just distilling great conversations i have had with each of you!
Posted by: deb schultz | June 06, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Great post and presentation...
Posted by: steve garfield | June 07, 2007 at 07:09 AM
Great presentation Deb. I especially like slide 25, the skills of the weaver. I have some of those skills and need to hone others but all in all it's a great description of what I am trying to accomplish with my blog.
Posted by: Ellen | June 07, 2007 at 07:25 AM
Great post. I mostly agree with your conclusions, though I'd say that while getting bogged down in semantics is unnecessary, considering the ever-changing meanings of the words we use here is very valuable. Those of us who are in the thick of this stuff and making constant, incremental adjustments to our terminology are fine. But what of the 20 y.o. trying to explain to their grandparent that they have 2K MySpace friends? Room there for some cross-generational tweaking of the definition of friend.
Posted by: Greg | June 07, 2007 at 07:35 AM
Greg - I agree that what we call things is actually important - I just dont think we have the nomenclature yet. Are their 2K "friends"? what are they? I was focusing on the behavior and maybe that will lead us to better naming. I think the cross generational (or same generation - my non-geek friends are baffled by all this) will work itself out eventually.
The context for this talk was at a geek startup conference - so hence the harshness of "tomato" tomatoe". Thanks for weighing in.
As a follow-up I realize that I am a complete novice on the theory of social anthropology and networks - i just DO this stuff. I am just starting to learn more from the smart thinkers in the space. I think a lot of social theory and network theory is really coming into play in broader contexts today - very exciting to see it breathe out in the open. Lots more to learn and observe and DO!
Posted by: deb schultz | June 07, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Hi Deborah,
I just wanted to say I really enjoyed flipping through the slides from your "Stop Yelling..." presentation. Over the past year or so I've met New Media/Web 2.0/Social Media with what I can only describe as a great deal of ambivalence. It's a battle between wanting to connect, being protective of my privacy, and harboring a strong aversion to/fear of hucksterism (go ahead and read that as "paranoia" if you like).
Anyway, finding what is good about all of this and putting my focus there has been the key and your presentation is helpful in that regard, so thanks.
-Jon
Posted by: Jon | June 08, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Lovely presentation. Simple, stylish.
Posted by: Paul Sweeney | June 11, 2007 at 05:25 AM
HI Deborah,
It was nice exchanging a few words with you at The Next Web. I totally agree to what your say.
It's a WeaveWorld !
I really look forward to have more conversations with you...
Stephane
The Feedback Guy.
Posted by: Stephane LEE | June 11, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Deborah,
Wow! How did I miss your session??!!
I was looking for conversations like this at last week's unconference, and for some reason didn't find as many of them as I would have liked. I loved seeing your presentation in retrospect, though. Beautifully done, as others have commented.
I hope I run into you at future conferences!
Amy
Posted by: Amy Lenzo | June 14, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Slick prez Deb! I have to come hear you speak one of these days...
Posted by: sarah | October 31, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Great post and presentation...
Posted by: zuzi | November 11, 2007 at 06:31 AM
Great analogy! Wonderful looking deck too.
Posted by: Jeremiah Owyang | December 05, 2007 at 04:48 PM