Michael Arrington doesn't get Personal Relevancy

Mark Lewis has written a piece over on Cnet about the need to flip the information delivery model. He writes:

"Web 2.0 flips the information delivery model upside down--it's now about global access, and information at your fingertips, aggregated from sources that you don't even necessarily know about, or care where they exist. Based on a set of search criteria, information in all its rich forms--media, video, audio, images, documents, text--all will be assembled together in context and delivered to users and applications for real-time experience."

That's a very poetic way of saying that in an age of hyper-choice, the most important challenge is to move beyond 'What's popular' toward what's 'Personally Relevant'.

I happen to also agree with Mark's suggested implementation - Source agnostic aggregation filtered by persistent search (and Attention Profiling) and delivered in real-time.

We call it Particls.

With the announcement of Streamy and Thoof, however, Michael Arrington over on Techcrunch has declared that Personalized news is pointless and will never work.

He's felt that way for a long time. I know... because he told me so while we were playing poker. A number of other people have suggested the same thing to me as well.

However, there are two things those people don't understand.

1. Particls is not about Personalized News, it is about Personalized Alerting. We use the personalization part to rank content and determine how urgent the alert is for each user on an individualized basis.
   
   Thoof, Streamy and others are doing a very different (and worthwhile) job - and they are all potential partners of ours. We wish them the best of luck.
   
   
2. Just because something has not worked before does not mean it is not worth doing again and again until it's done right. There is a place for popular, social news experiences (as Digg's popularity has proved) and there is a place for targeted, personal and solitary news experiences (as Digg's trolls and pop-culture content has proved).

MaaS - Media as a Service

Jeremiah - my friend and fellow Media 2.0 Workgroup member wonders out loud if media is becoming a service much like software.

I think it's an interesting question. I have recently re-downloaded the Joost Beta and started playing with it. A lot has been made about Joost's platform and how it is actually based on an elegant combination of on open standards technology.

It occurred to me that Joost (or something like it) could become for TV what the browser is for the Web.

While they are focusing on content deals with premium content providers right now - they have an opportunity to become the generic user interface for loading, remixing and socializing around streaming video content.

This would seem to me a step closer to Jeremiah's premise of Media as a Service (MaaS). If Cable TV is replaced by Joost, and Joost becomes an open service for the distribution of high-quality video content on scale, then we are indeed creating a series of tools, platforms and services that give us enormous capacity for media creation and distribution on demand.

Other companies like Microsoft, SplashCast and others are working towards similar services with very different implementations.

How can up and coming artists, enterprises and established media players take advantage of this emerging trend?

If media services are on tap, what are the implications for user choice and Attention Scarcity.

Follow up: Social Media is dead... or not

Looks like social media is not dead after all - but only just being born.

Stowe Boyd posts about his painful experience with a group of PR people as they talk about how to make 'Social Media Press Releases' - apparently they totally missed the point.

Brian Oberkirch also posts along similar lines talking about the fear felt in PR firms when trying to craft new forms of press releases and start blogs.

He hits the nail on the head:

"Blogs aren’t killing traditional media — attention scarcity and the decay of their business models is. Craigslist and other efficient attention allocators are draining media revenues, not East Chumuckla Joe and his online opinions about the Iraq war. Likewise, social media aren’t a replacement or extension of your traditional marketing tools. The question isn’t whether an online press release format should replace a traditional one. It’s much more gamechanging than that. Given the erosion of the traditional media system and the extension of a much more connected, distributed information ecosystem, how should companies communicate with those who matter to their business?"

Book: The Paradox of Choice

I'm starting to sound like a broken record now - but here is yet another quote about hyperchoice from a lengthy interview with Barry Schwartz, the author of 'The Paradox of Choice'.

“The problem used to be, ‘how do we get information out to people?’ That problem has now been solved in spades. Now the problem is, ‘how do we filter the information so that people can actually use it?’”

He is concerned that filtering technologies may not be up to the task of helping us deal with the overabundance of choice and information we seem to find ourselves having at the moment.

We'll see what we can do.

Thanks to Marjolein of CleverCogs for this!