Stowe Boyd

Month

May 2010

Books As Social Objects

Verlyn Klinkenborg makes some astute observations about his use of iPad and Kindle as a reader of books, in particular the role that books play in social intercourse and how this is diminished because of the restrictions that digital book tools place upon us:

The entire impulse behind Amazon’s Kindle and Apple’s iBooks assumes that you cannot read a book unless you own it first — and only you can read it unless you want to pass on your device. That goes against the social value of reading, the collective knowledge and collaborative discourse that comes from access to shared libraries. That is not a good thing for readers, authors, publishers or our culture.

Removing the social affordance of loaning someone a book is perhaps the worst crime perpetuated by the new world order of digital content. The communitarian aspect of shared books in libraries is similarly damaged.

Books should be social. Our personal property should be ours to loan to friends.

Imagine if Sears mde it impossible for me to loan my chain saw, or if fingerprint recognition on my VW made it impossible for a neighbor to borrow it?

But, in the name of countering ‘piracy’, we can’t loan The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress to a friend. And our society is lessened because of that.

Related articles

  • Editorial Notebook: Further Thoughts of a Novice E-Reader (nytimes.com)
  • In Ink on a Flyleaf, Forever Yours (nytimes.com)

May 30, 20104 notes
#E-book #iBooks #Apple #IPad #digital books #kindle
True/Slant Is Now Forbes Platform
  modify remove organize post follow up  

A strange twist: just as I start writing for True/Slant again — I had a short hiatus following my mother’s death — the company announces it is being acquired by Forbes, one of it’s investors. Lew Dworkin is assuming the Chief Product Officer role at Forbes, and detemining which contributors will remain with the newly re-trueslanted Forbes.com.

Anyway, I posted a few bits there this week:

Bloomberg At TechCrunch Disrupt

Fare Share: An App Just For NYC?

What The NYC Technology Ecosystem Is Missing

May 27, 20103 notes
#true/slant #forbes
Why Facebook Is Doomed

Bruce Nussbaum nails a criticism of Facebook’s pathological business model, basically saying that strip-mining user’s social relationships will not work. Users will reject this as an affront.

Facebook’s Culture Problem May Be Fatal

Facebook is wildly successful because its founder matched new social media technology to a deep Western cultural longing — the adolescent desire for connection to other adolescents in their own private space. There they can be free to design their personal identities without adult supervision. Think digital tree house. Generation Y accepted Facebook as a free gift and proceeded to connect, express, and visualize the embarrassing aspects of their young lives.

Then Gen Y grew up and their culture and needs changed. My senior students started looking for jobs and watched, horrified, as corporations went on their Facebook pages to check them out. What was once a private, gated community of trusted friends became an increasingly open, public commons of curious strangers. The few, original, loose tools of network control on Facebook no longer proved sufficient. The Gen Yers wanted better, more precise privacy controls that allowed them to secure their existing private social lives and separate them from their new public working lives.

Facebook’s business model, however, demands the opposite. It is trying to transform the private into a public arena it can offer advertisers.

It is exactly this change that dooms Facebook. Users’ expectations are being overturned.

Twitter — which has been based on a publicy model from the outset doesn’t have this problem. Facebook is in trouble because of forcing people form privacy to publicy without their agreement.

Yes, Facebook may back out of this last cycle of abuse, but there may be no happy medium.

May 26, 20103 notes
#Facebook #Privacy #Social media #Social network #Twitter #Generation Y #publicy
Twitter Won't Support Third-Party Sponsored Tweets
  modify remove organize post follow up  

Twitter is basically closing the marketplace for sponsored tweets:

Dick Costello, Enduring Value

As our primary concern is the long-term health and value of the network, we have and will continue to forgo near-term revenue opportunities in the service of carefully metering the impact of Promoted Tweets on the user experience. It is critical that the core experience of real-time introductions and information is protected for the user and with an eye toward long-term success for all advertisers, users and the Twitter ecosystem. For this reason, aside from Promoted Tweets, we will not allow any third party to inject paid tweets into a timeline on any service that leverages the Twitter API. We are updating our Terms of Service to articulate clearly what we mean by this statement, and we encourage you to read the updated API Terms of Service to be released shortly.

Why are we prohibiting these kinds of ads? First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created. They may optimize for either market share or short-term revenue at the expense of the long-term health of the Twitter platform. For example, a third party ad network may seek to maximize ad impressions and click through rates even if it leads to a net decrease in Twitter use due to user dissatisfaction.

Secondly, the basis for building a lasting advertising network that benefits users should be innovation, not near-term monetization. Twitter is uniquely dependent on and responsible for the long-term health and value of the platform. Accordingly, a necessary focus of Promoted Tweets is to explore ways to create value for our users. Third party ad networks may be optimized for near-term monetization at the expense of innovating or creating the best user experience. We believe it is our responsibility to encourage creative product development and to curb practices that compromise innovation.

I just saw Bill Gross hawking TweetUp at the Techcrunch Disrupt event, and this sounds like that company and others — like Magpie, Ad.ly and so on — are going to have their access cut off.

May 24, 20103 notes
#bill gross #twitter #dick costello #tweetup #magpie #ad.ly
Zuckerberg's Washington Post Piece Is Pure PR

Theoretically, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a piece for the Washington Post responding (at last) to the privacygate furor that has been raging for weeks, since the latest turn of the screw when Facebook revised their terms of service once again. I don’t think so: this looks like a very crafted PR piece.

Mark Zuckerberg, From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings

The challenge is how a network like ours facilitates sharing and innovation, offers control and choice, and makes this experience easy for everyone. These are issues we think about all the time. Whenever we make a change, we try to apply the lessons we’ve learned along the way. The biggest message we have heard recently is that people want easier control over their information. Simply put, many of you thought our controls were too complex. Our intention was to give you lots of granular controls; but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark.

We have heard the feedback. There needs to be a simpler way to control your information. In the coming weeks, we will add privacy controls that are much simpler to use. We will also give you an easy way to turn off all third-party services. We are working hard to make these changes available as soon as possible. We hope you’ll be pleased with the result of our work and, as always, we’ll be eager to get your feedback.

We have also heard that some people don’t understand how their personal information is used and worry that it is shared in ways they don’t want. I’d like to clear that up now. Many people choose to make some of their information visible to everyone so people they know can find them on Facebook. We already offer controls to limit the visibility of that information and we intend to make them even stronger.

Here are the principles under which Facebook operates:

— You have control over how your information is shared.

— We do not share your personal information with people or services you don’t want.

— We do not give advertisers access to your personal information.

— We do not and never will sell any of your information to anyone.

— We will always keep Facebook a free service for everyone.

“We have also heard that some people don’t understand how their personal information is used and worry that it is shared in ways they don’t want.” and “Simply put, many of you thought our controls were too complex. Our intention was to give you lots of granular controls; but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark.” just demonstrate that they aren’t really listening.

The statements made above are counterfactual: Facebook users do not have full control over their information, since a lot of it is shared with the world and there is nothing users can do about it at present.

A number of people are taking the tack that Facebook is too ingrained in our web lives to be dropped (see danah boyd’s most recent piece, for example), or that the benefits outweigh the negatives (like Tim O’Reilly’s Contrarian Stance on Facebook and Privacy). I don’t buy it. If enough people howl, and enough of Facebook’s partners begin to question their motives and policies, things can be changed.

I don’t think Facebook is the future but it may take a few years for that to be obvious.

May 24, 20102 notes
#mark zuckerberg #Privacy #Facebook #Tim O'Reilly #social networks #privacygate
Yammer And The Federation Of Work: Going The Wrong Way

Yammer has decided that they are going to go down the old Basecamp path, and force people who work with different companies to have separate logins:

via email

Dear Stowe,

We want to make you aware of a change to Yammer that will have an impact on you. You currently have more than one email address registered to your Yammer account. We’ve decided to move to a one-email-per-account model. This means that we will soon remove secondary email address(es) from your account.

Why are we doing this?

As Yammer evaluates its plans for future product features, we’ve realized that allowing users to have more than one email address linked to their account could result in potential problems. For example, admins from different networks might seek to apply conflicting settings to an account which is in both networks. There could also be confusion between work and personal Yammer accounts. We believe that cleanly separating Yammer accounts based on one email address per account is the best way to avoid these problems from occurring in the future.

How does this affect you?

  • We will create a separate Yammer account for each of the following company email addresses that you have: stowe@js-kit.com and stowe@ninety10group.com
  • When you want to switch between these Yammer accounts you must first log out and then log in with one of your other email addresses.
  • Your same password will be securely copied to each of your new accounts.
  • Soon, our desktop and iPhone applications will allow you to be logged into more than one account at the same time. Just register each account on the application and you will be able to toggle between accounts.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact help@yammer.com

We appreciate your patience, and apologize for any inconvenience that this change causes you.

Thanks for using Yammer,

The Yammer Team

This is a particularly bad move. First of all, it will lead to the same Federation of Work problems that I wrote about years ago vis-a-vis Basecamp:

Basecamp and The Federation Of Work

I have run up against what I think is a basic flaw in the Basecamp model.

Many times in the past few months, I have started a project up with a group, or groups, who like me are already using Basecamp. The problem that arises: Whose Basecamp implementation to use?

I would, of course, rather manage projects that I am involved with in my own Basecamp instance, while the others have the same perspective. But what happens, quickly, is that I have a bunch of memberships in other Basecamp projects, which do not collate into a coherent single view.

What’s missing is a fundamental insight: the federation of work.

Basecamp lacks the notion of federating project work. While I can invite my pal, Greg Narain, to join a project I am running, Basecamp is only willing to consider Greg as another individual, not as the owner of his own Basecamp instance. As a result, Greg must login to my instance to participate, and the status of the project does not show up on his dashboard.

The solution? 37 Signals should rework their participation model to reflect their new-found success: there are thousands of Basecamp users out there, and more of us will be running into this limitation. More important, perhaps, is that a federated model more accurately reflects the nature of the world. I am involved in a dozen or so projects, and I would like to have a single, coherent view of what’s going on across the board, as do all over my partners-in-crime.

Certainly, a single company still needs to be the administrator for each Basecamp project, but that doesn’t mean that we need to login at ten different instances everyday.

Basecamp should look at the federation model of Jabber and other successful bottom-up, federated tools. Within Jabber, I can login to my local server, and IM with any other trusted server in the world. The servers simply have to establish a trust relationship. In the Basecamp world, I should be able to invite Greg to participate in a project, and when he agrees, he should be able to simply point at his own Basecamp instance, rather than having to create a brand new, easily forgotten login.

At any rate, Jason and company are well-known for rejecting new features, but this is more than that, this is a fundamental need that should have been forseen from the start. And, in a way, it’s just another indicator of the success that the product enjoys.

When I wrote that in March 2006 it led to an argument with Jason Fried of 37signals, who basically said I was an edge case. I pointed out that success would lead to more of this sort of use — individuals working with many project groups in many companies. I said he would have to fix this falw, and years later they hacked an afterthought onto Basecamp to make it easier to switch accounts.

Yammer is headed down the sam cul-de-sac. This is a bad move, and one that irks me personally since I sketched out a vision of federated businesses collaborating through Yammer a year ago to the CEO, David Sachs. Obviously, I didn’t make the case persuasively enough.

Consider this idea. Imagine tens of thousands of companies that are managing work using a service like Yammer. Imagine if a company, AdjectiveNoun, could post a request for proposal, and distribute that to all companies and individuals that are following the company. Responses to the RFP could be directed to a defined context in AdjectiveNoun’s Yammer implementation, and would be streamed to AdjectiveNoun staff.

I think this is a breakthrough idea, and the first company to do this well will explode.

But you can’t get there without a federated model of work, and a global namespace. So Yammer is going to ultimately unjigger this mess they are creating. Probably not until some upstart comes along to upset things.

Maybe I’ll see one this week at Techcrunch Disrupt, who knows?

May 23, 20103 notes
#Basecamp #37signals #Yammer #federated identity
Is Open Dead? No, But This Metaphor Is.

Virginia Heffernan conflates a number of trends into some sort of funeral march to the ‘open web’. This is confused by the fact that she doesn’t start with any sort of definition of the open web, but instead launches into a tumbling metaphor:

Virginia Heffernan, The Death of the Open Web

The Web is a teeming commercial city. It’s haphazardly planned. Its public spaces are mobbed, and signs of urban decay abound in broken links and abandoned projects. Malware and spam have turned living conditions in many quarters unsafe and unsanitary. Bullies and hucksters roam the streets. An entrenched population of rowdy, polyglot rabble seems to dominate major sites.

People who find the Web distasteful — ugly, uncivilized — have nonetheless been forced to live there: it’s the place to go for jobs, resources, services, social life, the future. But now, with the purchase of an iPhone or an iPad, there’s a way out, an orderly suburb that lets you sample the Web’s opportunities without having to mix with the riffraff. This suburb is defined by apps from the glittering App Store: neat, cute homes far from the Web city center, out in pristine Applecrest Estates. In the migration of dissenters from the “open” Web to pricey and secluded apps, we’re witnessing urban decentralization, suburbanization and the online equivalent of white flight.

The metaphor of the web as a city may be occasionally insightful, but not in this case, I fear. There are no ‘districts’ on the web, since the web is not distributed in physical space. The ‘rabble’ that seem to inhabit the web actually live in the real world, and communicate through the web: in part by creating web pages that are connected to each other by links, but increasingly communicating through web or mobile applications — like Facebook and Twitter — that are not ‘open’ in a municipal sense like city streets. To the extent that these apps are ‘open’ they are more like sports stadiums, or bars, which are privately owned but must accord with laws laid down by governments about the management of public spaces.

It may be the case that some segment of the web population visits only under duress, but I bet that it is fairly small, and those that are in that situation spend as little time online as possible. So Heffernan’s characterization of iPad and iPhone users as suburbanites fleeing the inner city is just dumb.

Yes, Apple is controlling the apps that can get into the app stores, but among all the others — like Twitter and Facebook — there is the browser, which opens the door to all the immensity of the web, again.

Heffernan continues to fall down the stairs, tripped up by her metaphor:

But a kind of virtual redlining is now under way. The Webtropolis is being stratified. Even if, like most people, you still surf the Web on a desktop or laptop, you will have noticed pay walls, invitation-only clubs, subscription programs, privacy settings and other ways of creating tiers of access. All these things make spaces feel “safe” — not only from viruses, instability, unwanted light and sound, unrequested porn, sponsored links and pop-up ads, but also from crude design, wayward and unregistered commenters and the eccentric ­voices and images that make the Web constantly surprising, challenging and enlightening.

When a wall goes up, the space you have to pay to visit must, to justify the price, be nicer than the free ones. The catchphrase for software developers is “a better experience.” Behind pay walls like the ones on Honolulu Civil Beat, the new venture by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London, production values surge. Cool software greets the paying lady and gentleman; they get concierge service, perks. Web stations with entrance fees are more like boutiques than bazaars.

The far more significant development, however, is that many people are on their way to quitting the open Web entirely. That’s what the 50 million or so users of the iPhone and iPad are in position to do. By choosing machines that come to life only when tricked out with apps from the App Store, users of Apple’s radical mobile devices increasingly commit themselves to a more remote and inevitably antagonistic relationship with the Web. Apple rigorously vets every app and takes 30 percent of all sales; the free content and energy of the Web does not meet the refined standards set by the App Store.

Heffernan twists privacy and pay-walls together, and considers the result some sort of exclusionary and immoral policy, like redlining Blacks or Asians out of all-White neighborhoods. Is she cracked? Privacy is about keeping personal information concealed when free access to that information might be damaging to those involved. It is nothing like a Whites-only country club.

And pay-walls are erected as a means of making money: they are not an attempt to exclude some stratum of society, or religious or ethinic groups. Generally those creating pay-walls are not trying to block access: they hope everyone pays. So her suggestion that these are like redlining is off base.

The sole element of her argument that makes any sense is her sniping at Apple, but she should have gone after Jobs for blocking porn, which is a hallmark of the rough-and-tumble web that he is (partly) excluding from iPad and iPhone app stores. But again, the browser is still there, so it is a paper barrier at best.

In the final analysis, this is just Sunday supplement mumbo-jumbo and a waste of ink: an evocative metaphor that ultimately goes nowhere, but seeming to say a lot.

May 23, 20102 notes
#virgina heffernan #ipad #steve jobs #open v closed #apple #iphone #steampunk
Facebook In Yet Another Privacy Snafu
  modify remove organize post follow up  

I am fairly late to this story, which I guess broke late yesterday, but once again Facebook is in a privacy mess, this time along with MySpace and other social networking sites.

Emily Steel and Jessica Vascellos, Facebook, MySpace Confront Privacy Loophole

Facebook, MySpace and several other social-networking sites have been sending data to advertising companies that could be used to find consumers’ names and other personal details, despite promises they don’t share such information without consent.

The practice, which most of the companies defended, sends user names or ID numbers tied to personal profiles being viewed when users click on ads. After questions were raised by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook and MySpace moved to make changes. By Thursday morning Facebook had rewritten some of the offending computer code.

Advertising companies are receiving information that could be used to look up individual profiles, which, depending on the site and the information a user has made public, include such things as a person’s real name, age, hometown and occupation.

Several large advertising companies identified by the Journal as receiving the data, including Google Inc.’s DoubleClick and Yahoo Inc.’s Right Media, said they were unaware of the data being sent to them from the social-networking sites, and said they haven’t made use of it.

Across the Web, it’s common for advertisers to receive the address of the page from which a user clicked on an ad. Usually, they receive nothing more about the user than an unintelligible string of letters and numbers that can’t be traced back to an individual. With social networking sites, however, those addresses typically include user names that could direct advertisers back to a profile page full of personal information. In some cases, user names are people’s real names.

Most social networks haven’t bothered to obscure user names or ID numbers from their Web addresses, said Craig Wills, a professor of computer science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who has studied the issue.

The sites may have been breaching their own privacy policies as well as industry standards, which say sites shouldn’t share and advertisers shouldn’t collect personally identifiable information without users’ permission. Those policies have been put forward by advertising and Internet companies in arguments against the need for government regulation.

If there was any doubt that privacy needs to be regulated, these last weeks have certainly proven the case.

[There is a bizarre back story to this. Apparently Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb attacked the authors of the story for technical naivete, a point he lated retracted or at least ammended. As Alan Patrick comments on Broadstuff, “Sorry RWW, but the situation was pretty clear just from the WSJ article. Its just that the automatic position of the Silicon Valley A-List blogs seems to be to leap to Facebook’s defence these days. Quite why this is we can’t imagine.”

Yes, I agree. See Facebook Apologists Miss The Point: Facebook Isn’t The Future.]

May 21, 20103 notes
#Facebook #Google #privacygate #privacy #publicy #myspace #marshall kirkpatrick
Thought Leadership: Beyond Marketing

I had a short conversation with the CEO of a European software company at the recent Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco a few weeks back. He was explaining his plans for increasing his efforts to compete in the US. I suggested a slightly oblique approach, which motivated me to write this post.

Marketing Messages And Product Features: Fail

The rise of the social web has meant that a growing proportion of those likely to be ‘targets’ of traditional advertising and marketing have grown immune, or extremely hard to reach. We have become jaded by superlative overload, where products are the best, or more innovative, or cool, or guarantee high productivity, or more contented clients.

In a time of maximal messaging efforts, the noise is so great that no one can be heard, like standing in a room with hundreds of people shouting at the top of their lungs.

Is there any way to stand out?

I think there is.

Thought Leadership

Even in a time of great noise, people are still looking for guidance: they still need to make informed decisions, and to take action on their own behalf or on behalf of their companies.

To do so, they look more than ever to those individuals and organizations that they trust, those that have credibility and hard-won reputations.

How Can A Competitor Be A Thought Leader?

There are serious barriers to a company — a competitor in a particular marketplace — to be considered a thought leader. People evaluating options in that marketplace will naturally assume that the company and its spokespeople will use any marketing vehicle to favor their own products and services. As a result, any efforts in this regard are likely to be suspect.

Alternative courses of action are well known, but pose problems for companies trying to be thought leaders.

One obvious course is to hire existing thought leaders. This is a timeless approach. As examples consider Deloitte’s Center For The Edge, with John Seely Brown and John Hagel III as co-directors, or Tom Davenport’s work at Accenture’s Center For Excellence. These are individuals who are so well-known and well-regarded that the community considers them outside the conflict of interest potentially at work in their employment. The limitations here are costs: only a large firm like Deloitte or Accenture would be capable of investing the time and money in creating a research institute, and attracting people like these to work there.

Another path is to become allied with various projects and programs that are considered innovative, or oriented toward solving some societal problem, like IBM’s Smarter Planet initiative. But here again the costs are significant: IBM must be investing many millions into Smarter Planet, and many people have to be basically dedicating themselves to it full-time.

A third path is to organically develop thought leadership based on participation in open discourse about the issues that confront the community, through writing and public speaking. If you are selling ‘enterprise 2.0’ software, for example, that would involve discussions about adoption, the impact of technologies on business processes, and change management. But if these discussion seem generally canted toward positioning the company’s products rather than a more high-minded examination of needs and trends, it is likely to not work, and to possibly backfire altogether. If this works, however, it can be of inestimable value. Consider Tim O’Reilly’s reputation as the ‘sage of Silicon Valley’ or the throw weight that David Armano brings to a conversation about marketing.

What’s A Start-up To Do?

All of these paths have serious benefits, but considerable costs. A startup wondering how it can stand out in a crowded field may just punt, and go down the classic social media route: the CEO and/or marketing folks will blog on the company website, and hope that people read the posts; they pay to attend conferences, and hope that they can get a speaking slot; and they try to make the company and its various spokespeople seem to be highly regarded in the community. This is the path that all companies seem to head down, so it comes as no great surprise that it generally doesn’t lead to outstanding results.

In the discussion I had with that CEO in San Francisco, I sketched out three alternatives that could be both effective — leading to real thought leadership, not some stunt — and still affordable.

Rather than creating the standard company blog — with product release updates, hirings and travel plans — a company might be much better off developing an semi-independent blog, perhaps edited by an industry thought leader, and having one or more of the company’s management team acting as contributors. The company might also be clearly identified as an advertiser, and of course full disclosure of this relationship would ne necessary. For example, consider a company developing a small business accounting solution: instead of writing a company blog, the company could be a sponsor and participant in a blog dedicated to small business management. As a result, the company would be associated with the thought leadership that would grow with that website.

And rather than attending conferences and hoping to get a speaking spot, a company might be better off structuring its own event. For example, a company developing a solution to support human resource management might be better off holding a series of one day events in major US and European cities on ‘Best Practices In Career Development And Talent Retention’. And instead of packing the event with the companies managers, and endless product demos, well-regarded local figures in HR and management might be invited to speak. This way the company is viewed as a source of sage advice, and acting with the community in mind, rather than as an overly aggressive sales machine.

Another course of action that I recommend is to create an advisory board with thought leaders; however, advisory boards often are mere window dressing. If you’d put a bit more energy into using an advisory board — and convince your board members to contrbute more as well — the returns can be significant. For example, consider a software vendor with a large developer community that build products on the company’s platform. Getting a well-known software designer to head up a developer forum, and to keynote or MC a developer conference could lead to significant payback, much more than the typically passive advisory board might.

Planning For Thought Leadership

Every company’s situation is unique, but broad principles apply, and therefore the basic approach for any company has similarities.

If you have true thought leaders — individuals whose reputation exists independently of the company’s brand — certainly work to harness that social capital. Be cautious, however, because that regard can shift if the community beleives the thought leader is selling out in some way. If you are considering hiring a throught leader, this cautionary note is even more relevant.

If you are considering one or more of the sorts of programs I have coutlined, obviously a great deal of planning must be involved. In a software company — where I have the most experience — this will have impacts on marketing and product teams, if it is to lead to real effects, not just window dressing. And obviously, resources have to be allocated to thought leadership, just like conventional marketing and product management.

Please contact me — stoweboyd AT stoweboyd DOT com — if you’d like to discuss structuring a thought leadership program for your company.

May 20, 20103 notes
#marketing #thought leadership #product management
Microstreams In Business: Scenarios For Product Evaluation

As part of the Microstreams In Business project, I want to evaluate the leading 12 or 15 products that provide either a dedicated or integrated microstreaming (microblogging) solution for business use.

You can imagine a wide variety of approaches to doing this sort of analysis. In my case, however, I have rapidly down-selected to a three part approach to evaluating each of the tools:

  • Positioning — In essence, this is a quick look at how the vendor positions its product. Is it integrated with other products of the company or partners, or is it a dedicated standalone offering? Is it targeted for specific industries or functions? Of course, all of this is taken with a grain of salt, since it is relatively unproven: it’s just an assertion by the vendor.
  • Scenario-Based Evaluation — The second part of the analysis is based on several high-level scenarios that I am developing (see below), which are intended to cover a reasonable range of use cases that will demonstrate the breadth and depth of the offerings. The vendors will have a reasonable time — several weeks at least — to mock-up example implementations of the scenarios. I hope to have the opportunity to walk through these with representatives of the vendors companies, either face-to-face or remotely, and gathering screen shots for the final report. Vendors can make the scenarios as simple or as complex as they’d like, for example if a vendor wants to demonstrate special functionality, or integration with other tools.
  • Cross Product Analysis and Segmentation — The third part of the analysis forms the second half of the research activity, which is a cross product analysis of the capabilities of the various products evaluated, and their segmentation into different niches. I anticipate that some products will naturally gravitate toward sales and marketing outreach, while others will be better suited for internal project coordination. My goal in this is not to develop a single list of products ordered from best to worst based on some hypothetical customer. On the contrary, my belief is that there are a wide variety of user profiles, and any given product may fit one or more well, but no product is likely to match the needs of all customers. Over the next few weeks I will also be developing a more detailed survey to try to establsih more clearly what features and functionality potential customers desire, and how they cluster.
High-Level Scenarios Of Use

There is a limit to the level of effort that we can expect the participating vendors to invest in this research, but I have devised a few scenarios with the hope that they will provide enough sunlight to grasp the capabilities of a very large and diverse group of participating vendor companies.

The scenarios are all centered on a fictitious international consulting company called AdjectiveNoun. I have sketched out three scenarios, and some capabilities that I am hoping to see in each.

Cross-Company Scenario

AdjectiveNoun is involved in a consulting project for a client, Conglomerated Donuts, and needs to coordinate the project with internal and external developers, as well as the client’s various groups, such as marketing and engineering. As a project-within-the-project, the developers — both AdjectiveNoun staff and consultants — are building and managing software for CG.

¿ How are tasks, events, and deadlines supported in the tool ?

¿ How is a project represented ? Can there be sub projects ?

¿ What sort of visibility controls are provided ? What is the granularity of access?

¿ How are ‘external’ members of the project invited in ?

¿ What can be passed through the microstreams to project members ? Files ? Events ? Tasks ?

¿ How are ‘help desk’ and code development activities supported, if at all ? Native support, or integration with external tools, or just general coordination ?

¿ Is there some sort of ‘federation of identity’ supported ? How are AdjectiveNoun and Conglomerated Donuts implemented in the platform ?

Business Development Scenario

AdjectiveNoun has an ongoing marketing and sales program, involving community outreach, networking, and webinars, involving a national marketing team and a regional sales force. The community outreach involves crowdsourcing activities — getting current customers and partners to help with AdjectiveNoun’s goals to improve their services and brainstorm new services as well.

¿ What support does the tool provided for step-by-step, status-based workflows like marketing campaigns and sales  ?

¿ Is there any integration with email, such as invitations to non-users and activities like webinars ?

¿ What support is there for outreach marketing, like surveys or users forums ?

¿ How can crowdsourcing be supported, like a program with existing customers to help improve AdjectiveNoun’s outsourced help desk line of business ?

¿ How can results be rolled up, like predictions about quarterly sales results ? Are there tables, charts, or other displays ?

¿ Can external information streams — like RSS feeds and alerts — be integrated into the microstream, and associated with business activities like sales calls or client follow-up  ?

¿ Are sales tools like presentations and white papers accessible in the stream ?

Human Resource Scenario

AdjectiveNoun’s HR department has very aggressive staffing and training goals, and coordinates this with managers and project leads across the US and European operations. The company is committed to working to make sure that staff are presented with a variety of opportunities for growth, including international assignments, management training, and specific technical training courses. The company has developed an extensive suite of online video and text training resources.

¿ What capabilities are their to support recruiting ? Can specific email addresses be connected with an HR thread, so that candidates can send in resumes to an HR stream ?

¿ How would posting of job and training opportunities be handled ?

¿ Do users have extensive profiles, including options for a portfolio of skills, including company certifications ?

¿ How would the end-to-end handling of a candidate for a specific job run ? Likewise, the formation of a new marketing group in Europe, and posting the various jobs for that ?

Next Steps

These scenarios are provisional at the moment, although I have discussed them with four or five companies to date. I would expect to gather additional feedback in the next few weeks, and to solidify the scenarios after the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston in early June. Companies would then have as long as a month to develop mock-ups indicating how such scenarios might be supported. (I expect that this will involve dummy accounts, and scenario-driven play-acting of the sort most vendors undertake for their marketing efforts anyway. In fact, existing sandbox examples could be used and modified to suit.)

My goal is to have a face-to-face or remote meeting with all the vendors by the end of July at the latest, so that in late July and August I can complete the analysis and write the report. This would lead to a late August or early September availability of the final report.

May 20, 20104 notes
#research #mib #scenarios #microstreams
Time For 'Information Wants To Be Free' To Die

Cory Doctorow says it’s time to drop the now timeworn — and generally misunderstood — ‘information wants to be free’ aphorism. It was never what the nay-sayers thought it meant, and its misleading even when considered judicioiusly.

Stewart Brand actually said “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”

Doctorow goes on to point out that it is better to focus on what people want, not ascribing desires to disembodied bits on the internet:

Cory Doctorow, Saying information wants to be free does more harm than good

So what do digital rights activists want, if not “free information?”

They want open access to the data and media produced at public expense, because this makes better science, better knowledge, and better culture – and because they already paid for it with their tax and licence fees.

They want to be able to quote, cite and reference earlier works because this is fundamental to all critical discourse.

They want to be able to build on earlier creative works in order to create new, original works because this is the basis of all creativity, and every work they wish to make fragmentary or inspirational use of was, in turn, compiled from the works that went before it.

They want to be able to use the network and their computers without mandatory surveillance and spyware installed under the rubric of “stopping piracy” because censorship and surveillance are themselves corrosive to free thought, intellectual curiosity and an open and fair society.

They want their networks to be free from greedy corporate tampering by telecom giants that wish to sell access to their customers to entertainment congloms, because when you pay for a network connection, you’re paying to have the bits you want delivered to you as fast as possible, even if the providers of those bits don’t want to bribe your ISP.

They want the freedom to build and use tools that allow for the sharing of information and the creation of communities because this is the key to all collaboration and collective action — even if some minority of users of these tools use them to take pop songs without paying.

IWTBF has an elegant compactness and a mischievous play on the double-meaning of “free,” but it does more harm than good these days.

Better to say, “The internet wants to be free.”

Or, more simply: “People want to be free.”

Or, now that people have gotten a taste of power — having gained so much by moving edgewards, and defecting from mass identity imposed by mass media and the organizations that control them — we aren’t going to give it back.

May 20, 20103 notes
#Cory Doctorow #Stewart Brand #information wants to be free
Short Takes for 19 May 2010

Dave McClure stirs the pot at Google I/O conference, stating ‘Open Is For Losers’. Looks like he was just taking one side of an argument as a rhetorical device, though.

Maybe McClure was channeling Steve Jobs, because Apple was completely absent from Google I/O, the elephant in the room no one was talking about, according to Louis Gray.

Mark Zuckerberg just can’t get out of the limelight. Today’s news is possible securities fraud, a claim brought by the founders of ConnectU, who won a settlement against Zuckerberg and Facebook in 2008 but who are claiming he manipulated stock prices to make the settlement less than agreed.

The Guardian’s Open Platform launched today, perhaps the best support for my argument that in the future successful media companes will look and act like software companies.

May 19, 20103 notes
#Mark Zuckerberg #Google I/O #dave mcclure #facebook #Open Platform #guardian
Tweeting Brands

Brian Solis reports on the top brands mentioned on Twitter. Big surprise: #1 is…. (drumroll)…. Twitter!

The Top Brands on Twitter: April 2010

image


For more analysis, see Report: Top 20 Brands on Twitter – April 2010

May 18, 20103 notes
#Twitter #Brian Solis #brands
We Aren't Facebook Customers, But Its Products

Andrew Brown, Facebook is not your friend

Anyone who supposes that Facebook’s users are its customers has got the business model precisely backwards. Users pay nothing, because we aren’t customers, but product. The customers are the advertisers to whom Facebook sells the information users hand over, knowingly or not.

May 18, 20103 notes
#Facebook #andrew brown
Short Takes For 18 May 2010

Alex Payne leaves Twitter to co-found banksimple, a new web bank business based in NYC.

LazyFeed *finally* follows a recommendation I gave them a year ago, and have reconfigured their app to allow users to publish streams, or ‘channels’, of information. Louis Gray has a more detailed write-up. Looks like they are trying to compete with Tumblr?

Jason Calacanis and a group of other angels funds ‘This Week In’ for $300K, launching a new live streaming web network. ‘Watching streaming shows on your iPad is the future,’ Jason says.

Rumors swirling about Apple’s plans for Lala — a streaming music service to rival Spotify. Lala.com is shutting down 31 May, and the San Francisco Apple Worldwide Developers Conference is June 7. Will we finally be getting a social iTunes?

May 18, 20102 notes
#Alex Payne #Jason Calacanis #Lala #iTunes #Apple #banksimple #lazyfeed #louis gray #tumblr
Glenn Beck Says Obama Is A Satan Worshipper

Right-wing demagogue, Glenn Beck, was in fine form recently, when he suggested that President Obama is attempting to push Network Neutrality as a means of censorship:

Nate Anderson, Glenn Beck’s war on the FCC (and Satan worshippers)

“We are dealing with people who think they should rebel until they get their little kingdom like Satan did,” said Beck. “You know what? Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we’re going to keep the Internet the way it is right now. You know—or at least until people who are worshipping Satan, you know, aren’t in office.”

The mechanism by which net neutrality will silence Beck and those like him remains murky, but the matter is clearly of great concern.

“The FCC also says they are marching forward, marching with a boot on your throat to— announcing plans to make Internet companies a public utility,” he said. “Net neutrality—the court shot that one down, but they are going to make it a public utility now.”

Or again: “So now, the president wants to regulate the Internet, to help control all the misinformation out there. He is going to do it with net neutrality. Well, the court said no… So, now what they’re doing is the FCC is just going to—they’re going to make it a public utility. The Internet. Where are you, America, without the Internet?”

The Tea Baggers are adamant that anything that is unregulated should remain so, and any attempts by the US government to regulate anything should be blocked. Even when the Feds have the authority under our laws to manage and regulate communications for the public good.

(Meanwhile, I have witnessed an echo of this sentiment — leaving aside the satanism — in the recent discussion about treating Facebook as a communications ‘utility’. More to follow on that, I bet.)

May 17, 20105 notes
#Glenn Beck #Network Neutrality #Barack Obama #Facebook #FCC #Satan
Web Regrets

With a bazillion options to stick a digital foot in our mouths, it comes as no surprise that people sometimes share far, far too much online, and subsequently regret it:

via Retrevo, Preserve Your Facebook Privacy, Post Cautiously

Over 1/3 of our respondents admitted to having poster’s remorse and iPhone users rank slightly higher than other smartphone owners. Are smartphones making it too easy for people to embarrass themselves? 

[…]

image

Nearly 1/3 of those who regretted their post say it ruined their marriage or relationship with someone or caused problems at home or work. Then there’s the question of age, seeing that more respondents under 25 fell victim to their own regretful posts compared to their over-25-year-old counterparts.

3% ruined their marriage or relationship with a late-night Facebook comment, or posting revealing details on Twitter.

I am surprised that they don’t have a category for losing your job, not just ‘causing me trouble at work.’

Smartphones may be smarter than their owners.

May 17, 20103 notes
#Retrevo #web remorse
Are Blogs Dying?

Marshall Kirkpatrick recently griped about Ask.com’s blog search service closing down.

Marshall Kirkpatrick, R.I.P. World’s Greatest Blogsearch

Searching the blogs, scanning the posts, feed-powered search: there used to be more startups offering blogsearch than there are characters in a Twitter message today. But no more. Today blogsearch engines fade away all the time and almost no one notices.

But when Ask.com shuttered its blogsearch engine this month, I noticed. It made me sad, because it was the best blogsearch engine in the whole world. And now it’s gone. You, dear reader, probably didn’t even notice. But let me explain what we’re missing out on now that it’s gone.

[…]

That’s a real shame.

[…]

Sometimes you’re looking to see what experts in a field are writing in long-form on their blogs. Not spitting out on Twitter. Not posting on a static website. Blog posts. There is an incredible body of knowledge in that medium, and search by popularity was a really useful way to sort it. Surely someone offers a similar service. Who?

Bruce Sterling, who noticed Kirkpatrick’s howling when I hadn’t, suggests that it’s not just the difficulty of competing with Google blog search, but that blogs are dying as a medium:

Bruce Sterling, Dead Media Beat: blog search

Why does ‘almost no one notice’ that blogsearch enterprises are fading away? Because nobody notices that blogs are fading away. The technical ecosystem around blogs is disintegrating, being folded into other structures. Three years ago, I said at SXSW that there wouldn’t be many blogs around in ten years. That leaves ‘em seven years to continue to dwindle in interest and relevance. There will still be SOME blogs in seven years, no matter how firmly disintermediated they are by social media, and the many things that follow social media. There are still some personal computer bulletin board systems around today, too. But look at the trend. Compare today’s reality to the hectic illusions surrounding blogs three years ago.

There is certainly something to what Bruce has to say. Interest in long-format blogging is dropping, even while it is being incorporated into traditional media.

The rise of streaming tools, though, is leading to a new state, where long-format blogging is being imploded, turned into content for the short-format stream, like radio was cannibalized for TV.

We’ll see a new logical layering. At the bottom will be the web of pages, a vast archive of HTML connected by links: a giant hypertext.

At the top will be the web of flow, as typified now by Twitter microstreaming. Users will consider themsleves as ‘logged into’ Twitter (or other microstreams) where microsyntactic references, via URLs, hashtags, or other techniques will allow users to pull in larger format or richer content, like text, audio, video, or images. This is where people will operate, share, comment, question, and argue converationally.

In between will be a swirling nexus of ‘engines of meaning’ — algorithms and filters, assemblages and indexes, and the social networks where we connect — tools that people use to mark, retain, annotate, and find snippets of meaning.

This inherently devalues the materials accumulating at the bottom, like last week’s newspapers, old issues of magazines, and yesterday’s blog posts.

A few years ago we seemed to live in our RSS readers, and the metronome of our media diet was timed to author’s posting cycles, or our feeding cycles which was more like the daily newspaper than a stock ticker.

We’ve shifted to stream time, and the tempo is much, much faster.

Techmeme seems slow, when it formerly seemed like the breakingest place to be for tech.

And the great majority of chatter about the breaking news stories is in the stream, not in the comments on blogs, and not in the blogs themselves. While a great deal of thoughtful and expository writing still goes on, the average joe is dropping out of long format writing, even as an aspiration. It’s easier to just talk, and tweeting (or Facebook) seems more like talking or texting, and less hard work.

May 17, 20108 notes
#Bruce Sterling #Marshall Kirkpatrick #ask.com #streaming #web of flow #web of pages
How Do I...

image

May 16, 20103 notes
#facebook
Facebook Privacygate Continues

The furor about the Facebook Privacygate continues, with all sorts of people making grand pronouncements:

Henry Blodgett, Ignore The Screams—Facebook’s Aggressive Approach Is Why It Will Soon Become The Most Popular Site In The World

Facebook often shares way more information with the world than its users know, expect, or want.  It consistently approaches innovation and privacy changes with a do-it-first-and-then-see-what-happens attitude, which enrages those who feel it should ask permission first.  And it has often done a bad job of explaining to users what it is doing, why, and when, as well as what control users have over this.

But Facebook’s aggressiveness on the privacy front is a big reason for the site’s success. The company will survive the latest PR flap, just as it has survived all the other PR flaps. And unless the latest blow-up scares it into changing its ways (let’s hope not), Facebook will continuing growing like a weed until it is by far the most popular web site in the world (and note what “most popular” means: It means that, despite the howling of a tiny minority, more people choose to spend more time on Facebook than any other site in the world).

From a business perspective, in other words, Facebook’s approach to innovation is smart. It’s not always popular, but it works. And if Facebook wants to maintain its competitive edge, it will do what it has to do to smooth over the latest blow-up, and then go forth with the same approach and attitude it has had all along.

Step back and think about what Facebook is doing here.  It is pioneering an entirely new kind of service, one that most of its users have never seen before, one with no established practices or rules.  It is innovating in an area—the fine line between public and private—that has always freaked people out. It is allowing people to communicate and share information in ways they never have before. It is making decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people.  And it is trying to stay a step ahead of competitors that would like nothing better than to see it get scared and conservative and thus leave itself open to getting knocked off.

[…]

As loud as the recent screams have been, they will likely be forgotten in a month.  If they aren’t forgotten, Facebook can just roll back some of the changes that freak people out the most, just as it did a few years ago with Beacon, but keep the rest.

I actually don’t buy this argument at all. Facebook was growing very quickly with it’s old school form of privacy controls. It’s only after Twitter rejected Zuckerberg’s offers that he decided to throw privacy totally out the window, and subsequent privacy policy changes have enraged nearly everyone that understands what’s going on. It is not smart to disregard the serious issues here, hunker down in a PR bomb shelter for a few weeks, and then get back to pissing everyone off.

I also don’t agree that Facebook is pioneering something totally new; there have been literally dozens of social networking sites with millions of users, and they all have privacy policies of some description.

I do agree with Blodgett that there is a fine line between privacy and publicy, but I don’t see that taking a pause to figure out what exactly the Facebook’s privacy policies should be cedes competitive space to competitors. And even if it does, it should be done, anyway.

Innovation should not lead to users feeling that they are being raped, even if Blodgett and other boosters think it makes for good business.

danah boyd moves in a quite opposite direction, suggesting that Facebook has become a social utility, and therefore should be regulated:

danah boyd, Facebook Is A Utility; Utilities Get Regulated

Throughout Kirkpatrick’s “The Facebook Effect”, Zuckerberg and his comrades are quoted repeated as believing that Facebook is different because it’s a social utility. This language is precisely what’s used in the “About Facebook” on Facebook’s Press Room page. Facebook never wanted to be a social network site; it wanted to be a social utility. Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Facebook functions as a utility.

And yet, people continue to be surprised. Partially, this is Facebook’s fault. They know that people want to hear that they have a “choice” and most people don’t think choice when they think utility. Thus, I wasn’t surprised that Elliot Schrage’s fumbling responses in the NYTimes emphasized choice, not utility: “Joining Facebook is a conscious choice by vast numbers of people who have stepped forward deliberately and intentionally to connect and share… If you’re not comfortable sharing, don’t.”

In my post yesterday, I emphasized that what’s at stake with Facebook today is not about privacy or publicity but informed consent and choice. Facebook speaks of itself as a utility while also telling people they have a choice. But there’s a conflict here. We know this conflict deeply in the United States. When it comes to utilities like water, power, sewage, Internet, etc., I am constantly told that I have a choice. But like hell I’d choose Comcast if I had a choice. Still, I subscribe to Comcast. Begrudgingly. Because the “choice” I have is Internet or no Internet.

[…]

Your gut reaction might be to tell me that Facebook is not a utility. You’re wrong. People’s language reflects that people are depending on Facebook just like they depended on the Internet a decade ago. Facebook may not be at the scale of the Internet (or the Internet at the scale of electricity), but that doesn’t mean that it’s not angling to be a utility or quickly becoming one. Don’t forget: we spent how many years being told that the Internet wasn’t a utility, wasn’t a necessity… now we’re spending what kind of money trying to get universal broadband out there without pissing off the monopolistic beasts because we like to pretend that choice and utility can sit easily together. And because we’re afraid to regulate.

And here’s where we get to the meat of why Facebook being a utility matters. Utilities get regulated. Less in the United States than in any other part of the world. Here, we like to pretend that capitalism works with utilities. We like to “de-regulate” utilities to create “choice” while continuing to threaten regulation when the companies appear too monopolistic. It’s the American Nightmare. But generally speaking, it works, and we survive without our choices and without that much regulation. We can argue about whether or not regulation makes things cheaper or more expensive, but we can’t argue about whether or not regulators are involved with utilities: they are always watching them because they matter to the people.

[…]

I cannot imagine that Facebook wants to be regulated, but I fear that it thinks that it won’t be. There’s cockiness in the air. Personally, I don’t care whether or not Facebook alone gets regulated, but regulation’s impact tends to extend much further than one company.  […] I just wish that Facebook would’ve taken a more responsible path so that we wouldn’t have to deal with what’s coming. And I wish that they’d realize that the people they’re screwing are those who are most vulnerable already, those whose voices they’ll never hear if they don’t make an effort.

danah takes the metaphor of being a ‘utility’ instead of an application to the logical conclusion. Other applications certainly have that characteristic, like instant messaging. Back when AOL was acquiring Times Warner the Justice Department considered AOL’s dominance in IM as a societal issue, and blocked AOL from adding voice and video support for years afterward, allowing Yahoo and MSN a competitive advantage. In essence, the Justice department was regulating that industry to ensure fairness and choice for users.

A similar case can be made for social networking, today. When so many people rely on these services — like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter — to work and play, and the actions of the largest players in this space impact hundreds of millions worldwide, and perhaps a hundred million or more US citizens, the US government should be involved in regulating this corner of the communications landscape.

If the government takes the side of the individual in the debate about Net Neutrality, certainly it must take the side of the individual in the face of actions taken by companies like Facebook that can cause societal harm. It is insufficient, as danah states, to say to users ‘You don’t like how we are running our application? Fine, just quit!’ The phone company is not allowed to do that, and neither are internet providers, or the electric company.

I’m with danah: this marketplace is ripe for regulation and reform. New and untried forms of advertising based on strip mining users’ information, considered private only a few months ago, need to be examined closely, not matter how happy they make VCs and market mavens like Henry Blodgett.

We are moving quickly into a web where people are voluntarily sharing more and more personal information, a world based increasingly on publicy instead of privacy. This transition is happening by the decisions of millions, on an independent basis, when they reveal their location, their purchasing preferences, or what they ate for lunch. But, as I wrote the other day,

Even though I am an advocate for publicy — living life in the open on the web — I am by no means an advocate for having it jammed down our throats by a unilateral change in the Terms Of Service agreement by a powerful corporation.

from Facebook Apologists Miss The Point: Facebook Isn’t The Future

Fred Wilson parses the situation pretty succinctly:

Fred Wilson, Privacy and the Treacherous Middle Ground

 The problem Facebook is having right now is that they are sort of private and sort of public. I think of them as a public channel. I don’t post anything to Facebook that I don’t want everyone to see. But that is not how many of their users see them. I believe Facebook is going to have to choose to be either totally public or totally private or they are going to gradually cede their social graph to services that stake out the totally public or totally private territory.

Privacy is pretty black and white. It either is or it isn’t. And trying to have it both ways won’t work.

Amen.

May 16, 20103 notes
#Elliot Schrage #Facebook #Mark Zuckerberg #danah boyd #fred wilson #henry blodgett #privacy #publicy #xl #*
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011 2012
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2009 2010 2011
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2008 2009 2010
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2007 2008 2009
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2006 2007 2008
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2005 2006 2007
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2004 2005 2006
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2003 2004 2005
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2002 2003 2004
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2001 2002 2003
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2000 2001 2002
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2000 2001
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December