What do you think of Thomas Power: digitally deft, or definitely daft? July 27, 2007
Posted by David Petherick in : digital biographer, ecademy, online identity, social media , trackbackOriginally published at Ecademy.com on 27th July 2007: Link to Original
I’ve been very surprised by the level of debate within Ecademy recently on the issue raised by the interviews Thomas Power, Andy Coote and I gave to the BBC, which appeared under the headline “Meet the digital biographer“.
I thought it worth putting some thoughts down, and to invite debate, as the sound and fury following the article has often been led by blogs which are not simply saying “here’s something worth debating”, and so skewing things. So here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth - or rather, David Petherick’s keyboard. Via wifi through the kind auspices of the Hotel Mar i Vent, Banyalbufar, Serra de Tramuntana, Mallorca.
One ambiguity which arose from the editing of the responses in the story and which needs to be clarified is that I may write blogs for others, but I don’t manage messages for anyone else. That fact has been stated a few times, but it does not seem to have stopped some people from making the assumption wrongly, and repeatedly, that I read and reply to messages on behalf of Thomas Power. I do not. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? “Thomas Power does not write his own emails” shock horror probe… tabloid blogging with a gonzo flavour.
1) The Origin of Species
Although I do create original content, and have been blogging since 2003, I have found that people are willing to pay me to blog for them. But the original ideas for the blog are all entirely those of my customers. In Thomas Powers’ case, he’ll typically sent an email or a text message with two or three links, or a reference to something in the print version of the FT. I’ll then ask a few questions to clarify the approach required, research this story, and create a blog, and mail it to Thomas. Sometimes, he doesn’t touch it. Other times, it’ll be significantly modified, or reworked.
The important point to make, though, is that the work cannot be considered my own writing other than from a technical point of view - I typed the words into my Mac. I honestly see such blogging as fairly mechanical, and not an especially skilled process. The ability to have balance (or to be biased) and to ensure that citations and a deft turn of phrase are those skills that people pay me for - as this work saves them time.
2) The Ecademy Profile
When you look in a miror, you may not realise it, but you don’t see yourself. You see a laterally inverted you - literally (laterally) the opposite of what others see when they look at you. That helps to explain why we sometimes do not recognise our facial expression in photographs - we’ve really never seen it before.
An online profile, or a CV, is much the same. Some people can see themselves fairly objectively, and describe themselves well. But often, they cannot do so without being, and sounding, self-conscious. And not everyone has the ability to write well.
That’s where I started my work within Ecademy - by rewriting profiles. And, having some ability with HTML and graphics, I was able to make profiles look good too - using typography, colour and images to enhance the appearance of a profile. Some customers were happy to say “Look what David has done” whereas others preferred discretion - but it is an interesting fact that nobody, in over a year of creating profiles, has expressly said “I don’t want you to tell anyone you are doing my profile”.”
A portrait drawn by an artist is how one person kindly described my work. And I am very proud of, and highly flattered by that description. Another observer suggested the process was similar to that where one employs a professional hairdresser to use their skills to make you look good. And many politicians use speech writers to make them sound better. That doesn’t mean people can’t cut their own hair, or write their own speeches - it’s just that the results, in terms of time and effort, are often in favour of ‘getting someone in’.
I personally don’t find it worthwhile to pay more than a tenner or so to have my hair cut, but I will spend £200 on a professional voiceover.
3) Da Digital Footprint (or Making yourself Googlicious)
Google David Petherick. OK, uncommon surname, no surprise there. Try googling ‘digital biographer’. Try ‘better profile’ or ‘profile makeover’. Not bad results. I’ve used Ecademy to build up my own online footprint and search visibility. It’s something one needs technical knowledge, and writing ability to achieve most effectively - but it is not rocket science, and it delivers the kind of results that people are prepared to pay for - and to pay well for.
It is in this area that I think “digital biography” is set to grow - by managing a personal name and brand (or a corporate one) to enhance reputation and ensure good visibility. Or just to make sure people are talking about you. I was not at all surprised to find several London ‘digital communications’ and PR agencies blogging about me last week, or to find myself being contacted by a radio station for a five-minute interview.
As you can see form the Google results searching for ‘digital biographer’, the PR guys have realised they should have thought of this a while ago - but they’ll be positioning themselves around similar notions before too long, and I shoudl be able to get work from them if I play my cards right. The radio guys realise that this is now an issue of general, rather than niche interest. I’m still waiting for the call from Hollywood, but I expect it’ll come when I open an LA or New York office.
4) Adverts are broken - How do we sell now?
Advertisers know that banner ads are not quite working, and when a widget can be being used by millions of people within a week or two within social networks, even the most luddite marketing manager will realise they have to change their models, or get another job.
Selling stuff to people is not how things work online (certainly not in the context of social networks). I’m not going to drown you in stats or reports, but I’ve read a few in the last few years, and a lot in the past few months. They tell me, in a nutshell, that advocacy, and peer opinion, counts for far more in decision making now. And it will do more in future. So the people who want you to buy their products are working out that they will have to persuade you, or your friends, or engage you indirectly with something that will add to their credibility and status.
Social networks and blogs allow opinion to be led by anyone, but popularity is always achieved democratically. If you suck, you disappear. If you’re interesting, entertaining, or just ‘controversial’ you keep reappearing. It’s fickle, of course, because it’s human nature, of course.
5) New structures need new support mechanisms
The ancient Egyptians made sure the bases for their Pyramids were absolutely level and flat using a simple tool: water. As the water evaporated, you’d see the bits sticking up highest first, and be able to level them down. And repeat - get rid of the little bits sticking up… the result is that apparently the Great Pyramid at Cheops has lateral variation across its base that is barely achievable today with our new tools.
Now, the Egyptians used slave labour, and had no wheel, so they didn’t have it all sorted, but the structures they built to last have outlasted their time on earth as a civilisation. But they did have biographers - the scribes who used cuneiform to record so much of their history and culture. And we still have to remember that the great library of Alexandria was destroyed by fire, so we lost a lot of data there.
Now, if you think of the new corporation as being one that has part-time employees who may all work from home or hot desks, and outsources many activities, as well as being “outside in” in its structure - you understand that it reflects a new pattern of work and a new pattern of engagement that fits perfectly into a connected, networked, digital future.
That’s why media is spending what seem, at the moment, to be extraordinary sums on new media like YouTube and MySpace. They are betting the farm on the same future, and trying to make sure they have staked a big enough claim early enough. They may be making bad bets, and they may be backing the wrong horses, and they may be too immersed in the culture and habits of ‘old media’ to make things work, but they know they have a stark choice: evolve or die. The tricky part may just be that it’s actually ‘revolve or die’ - revolution of the species rather than something more gradual and natural.
6) Andy Warhol and the Digital Undergound
Within the structure of social networks, the higher your ‘nodal index’ - the more connections you have, the easier it is to touch and influence many others. So Thomas Power, with his many thousands of connections at Ecademy, LinkedIn, Facebook and so on, is worth more than Bill Gates, because he can connect to more people. Gates might have more money in the bank, but he’s not as well connected, and in networking terms, not as valuable a connection. A Power has more power than a Gates.
I am the network, and you are the network. If you can’t find me, then I don’t exist. If you don’t find me, then I won’t exist. I need to use an increasingly diverse range of tools to ensure my existence - and a digital biographer seems to be one, relatively recent, and for now, effective, way to ensure that your message is found, read, and understood.
Andy Warhol once said that, in the future, we will all be famous for fifteen minutes. Andy, here’s an update: in the future, we will all be famous for fifteen searches. So, where are you now? Not Andy, you
