I met with Lucy Wood earlier today, Manager of Web Analytics for the New York Times. While we hopped from one fascinating topic to the next during our hour and a half meet-up, the greatest nugget I walked away with was that no ‘1′ metric is the end all and be all. We may track numbers until we’re blue in the face, and they can help guide product and marketing decisions; however, they are simply one piece of this large puzzle, which is necessary in understanding human behavior.

Perhaps this is naive of me to say, but so much of our culture is built up around “This is black, and this is white.” “This Somali Pirates are bad, and the US Ships are good.” “If the waitress physically displays the desserts to the customers, they will purchase at least one of them.” “If you build it, they will come.” (Okay, you get the idea.)

And, in business, it’s all about numbers. However, in fact, things are not so black and white. While web analytics may hold one of the keys to the holy grail of a profitable online business structure, it is not the end all and be all

I’ve been following MIT’s Future for Center Future Civic Media blog for a while, and recently Lisa Williams discussed her study of how our real-life social interactions can benefit news websites. She proposes that news sites look at the four social cues, which guide individuals’ behavior in the public sphere: crowds (we are drawn to where massive numbers of individuals are gathered), trending (we notice where individuals form lines or a direction where people are running), proximity (we see events close to us) and trajectory (we’re attracted to those moving in a similar direction as ourselves).

While some online activities, such as facebook and twitter are usually friends talking amongst themselves, news websites aggregate complete strangers, coming to a common place for similar information (for example, 100 viewers reading the same news article). I like to assimilate this interaction with a lecture; Lisa proposed the metaphor of news websites as similar to public parks.

Sample characteristics Lisa suggests include a listing of the day’s most-read articles or article suggestions by individuals with whom we share common interests. To Lisa’s list, I also suggest personal invitations or reminders. Sites offering email updates, whether it be for future book recommendations, daily news digests or coupons, retain readership by extending the relationship and keeping the brand top-of-mind.

In the future, people will expect their news aggregate to remember what they’ve read. They may also expect 3D technology, where they’re not only able to read and watch the fighting occurring in Sri Lanka, but they’re able to put goggles on and be a part of it.

The world of online and mobile news content has a lot of experiments, which have yet to be tried…trial and error?!?!?…yep, that’s definitely a part of growing up.

‘Trust’ is the recurring theme as I make my way through the pages of black ink I have dubbed, ‘Pile of stuff to read.’ 1.Clay Shirky writes how more (time, information, outside opinions, etc.) is needed to obtain trust on the internet. 2.I’m researching the media in Rwanda, which is fighting an incredibly death defying climb of repentance.  It’s believed hate propaganda against the Tutsis began with print media; this hate propaganda continued the divide between the Hutus and the Tutsis, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths during the 1994 genocide. 3.Our own U.S. media is no longer trusted, nor are our financial institutions.

As individuals, we gain trust through keeping our word and doing what we say we’re going to do. We build trust through being open, honest and approachable, as well as saying, “This is what I’m going to do next time…” to provide assurance that the future will be different.

Trust was taken for granted. We assumed the New York Times and Walter Cronkite had all the news. Now, we don’t know who to trust. (As a result of this, I am a huge proponent of Media Literacy, but, I’ll save that for another post.) With so many voices now available, trust is rare and having it is worth it’s weight in gold. It is one of ‘the,’ if not ‘the’ key ingredient in any media outlet’s success, whether it be an overall brand or a journalist’s name.

Media companies need to act with this same honest, open, approachable attitude. What’s also needed in rebuilding any broken trust is having individuals whom we do trust, speak on our behalf. If my mom (whom I do trust) told me to take it easy on my brother (who I may have moment of distrust with), I would likely give him a break. Further affirmation within most cultures includes acclamations by others in our field. “Pulitzer Prize Winner” is one example.

For a country like Rwanda, it’s also very important to know the importance of family within the culture. To earn trust, journalists must be a part of the ‘in’ group.

Trust takes time. Patience and building relationships with key influencers within a community are key (though extremely difficult when needing to meet shareholder expectations). Any strategy, now, must look towards the long-term – it will be worth it in the long-run.

A recent Slate post by Lesley M.M. Blumeit entitled, ‘The Media’s Lost Generation. How do you get ahead in an industry that can’t see its own future?‘ raises the idea that individuals hoping for journalistic stardom are no longer vying for specific positions as their career goals (i.e. Executive Editor of Vogue). But, instead, it’s about self-expression. Goals are less specific, ’I wish to be a published writer’ or ‘I wish to be a journalist, in whatever form that is.’

This change in thinking makes complete sense – the future of the industry is so unclear that positions which may have once been life goals, may not exist. Besides, as Clay Shirky points out in his book Here Comes Everybody, “everyone is a media outlet.” Even the legal ramifications for what defines a journalist have become frayed.

I think this shift from specifically-defined goals to allowing ourselves some breathing room is not only accetable, but welcomed. If I love to write, I can be a Hollywood scriptwriter, a public relations professional, a news reporter, and a grant writer (just to name a few). If I love to speak, I can be a politician, a sports announcer, a news anchor, a media trainer, a salesman, a company spokesman, a television host, or a motivational speaker (and the list goes on and on)…I know many in my generation who are frustrated because although we desire the focus and purpose of specifically saying, “I am a physical therapist,” we have so many interests that we do not want to be limited to one title. In addition, our fulfillment and contentment in life comes from the attributes attributed to a certain job title, not specifically the exact definition of that position.

Given this change in thought processing, the dreaded question of, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” needs to perhaps be changed, as well. Having so many interests, I often become flustered with that question. I think the more appropriate question is, “What do you want to do when you grow up?”

I realize the media landscape will be unrecognizable in perhaps a year or two (compared to previous decades); however, perhaps this is one of many silver linings.

I wanted to point out one specific story from Joshua Cooper Ramo’s book, The Age of the Unthinkable. Ramo references a meeting in 1813 between the French emperor Napoleon and the Austrian minister of state Metternich. The gentlemen spent 9 hours together, Napoleon trying to persuade Metternich from engaging Austria in an alliance which would topple France’s great political power. Towards the end of their meeting, Napoleon was so enraged that he threw his hat across the room. He looked at Metternich with expecting eyes, assuming the other body in the room would retrieve it for him; however, this was not the case. Metternich’s refusal to retrieve the article of clothing was him exemplifying his status within the discussion, “I am in control here; I am not your servant; you just lost.” And with the words, “Sire, you are a lost man.” Metternich ended their 9 hour discussion and proceeded to topple France over the coming weeks. Perhaps it’s significant, perhaps not, but I do believe it’s these subtle acts (or lack of an action) which are moments where great power is displayed. Though unsaid, Napoleon knew he was finished.

I recently finished reading Joshua Cooper Ramo’s book, The Age of the Unthinkable: Why the New Global Order Constantly Surprises Us and What To Do About It.

The theme running throughout is that of exactly what the title implies – we are living in a time when change occurs so swiftly, and often with minimal warning, that predicting what is to come is fairly impossible. He provides countless examples, including the fall of the Soviet Union to showcase how we are unable to view the dynamics occuring below the surface of situations, which inevitably predict its outcome.

Like many books out now, such as The Tipping Point, Freakonomics, and Nudge, (although I recognize these gentleman are discussing behavioral economics while Ramo’s topic is more foreign policy), Ramo suggests the importance of what at first may appear ’small’ acts actually have significant impact on world events.

He spoke a great deal about resilience, citing that countries can no longer predict and prepare for every violent act another country may perform. He references Hizbullah and their tactic of caring for the people in Lebanon, which, in turn, developed relationships that have now made them incredibly popular amongst the people, and therefore, very strong as a group.

He quotes C.S. Holling, 1973, “If we are dealing with a system affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of relationships.” Though this was written in a paper entitled, ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological System,’ This quote can be applied to other systems as well. I immediately thought of so many who are unemployed now, and the importance of relationships in that new job search.

Ramo is quick to point out the leaders of our world are not as ‘in control’ now as they once were. Especially, given rise to the Internet; individuals have the control. He is an advocate of open sourcing and distributing information to the masses. As a result, inviduals are empowered and are wanting and willing to take action.

Just as the Internet is redefining the term  ’media’ and placing the power into the people’s hands, it is imperative that individuals recognize their individual power.

This past weekend Amazon.com removed rankings from a number of LGBT books, causing a huge outcry from individuals - twitter was littered with #amazonfail comments absolutely blasting the company. Amazon has given basically no response and has not engaged with the people.

I give this example 2-fold 1. it was individuals who chose to take action and 2. Amazon, I am sure, did not predict this situation, at all, but even as a corporation, they need to be engaged with their audience and developing those relationships in order to have the means to act, even when the unpredictable happens.

*I do apologize for the lack of paragraph breaks. My computer is being funny today.

The recent outcries in Moldova add as an example of how social media is providing a means for individuals to connect and act. The New York Times recently published the article, Protests in Moldova Explode, With Help of Twitter. I also think of the G20 summit last week and the BBC’s article, Twitter on the Front Lines, articulating the great impact Twitter had on the movement, used partially to bring people together, but moreso to provide information to others who were unable to be on the ‘front lines’ in the streets.

NPR’s On the Media recently aired an episode asking Lee Rainie, Director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, how the Internet is affecting us. What was interesting was the term ‘Network Individualism,’ which is a term his colleague has coined (and I hear a book will be due out in the near future). ‘Network Individualism’ is the idea that as people have more needs in the world (as institutions and family bonds have disintigrated), people have become more independent. As a result of this newfound independence, new ‘do-it-yourself’ social networks are replacing these disintegrating institutions. Now, people are creating their own networks based around their individual needs.

I believe Moldova and the G20 are just two very active examples of how people are creating and utilizing these networks, and I’m sure at next year’s G20 meeting, the use of social networks and the number of people involved in them will only grow.

e.politics has begun coming out with six-part series on Obama’s online strategy. The first 2 installments are out. It’s worth taking a look.

Technology company, Akamai, is showing over 7.7  million viewers watched video stream online yesterday at the exact time (beginning around 11:30 am). This number does not even come close to the tens of millions of viewers who watched video stream at some point during the day. Typical daily viewership is 2 million viewers.

Then, there’s the new WhiteHouse.gov website, which was changed at precisely 12:01 pm yesterday afternoon and included a blog post by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, stating, “…the administration’s new media efforts will center around three priorities: Communication, Transparency and Participation. “

Articles abound, dissecting how the Obama team is revamping traditional political politics. Here are some of them: Slate’s Obama’s New Press Strategy, washingtonpost.com’s e-Hail to the Chief and Conversation Agent’s Obama’s Social Media Campaign.

It’s nice to see that as the media industry model is changing, the government is now partaking in that change, as well. As brand’s themselves, are becoming media companies, Obama is joining in.

However, Obama will likely have a more difficult time than even the most bureacratic international company. Wired Magazine’s Evan Ratcliff does a very good job of providing a listing of the obstacles the White House faces in achieving its goals of “Communication, Transparency, and Communication.” These goals will take time; however, at least it’s a start.

I recently wrote an article for a conference in Washington, DC being held this February. Check it out!

http://www.fem2pt0.com/

Thanks!