Had an opportunity to see the ‘bubble’ last night at the “Inside the Bubble” event organised by Banner. The venue was fun, the event well-attended by a host of interesting folk (predominantly in IT and media) and – if you can measure a business by its guests – Banner are certainly doing something very ‘right’.
There was rigorous chairing from Banner’s Director of Strategy, Robert Hollier (firm but fair) and thankfully none of the panel fell off the ‘boyband stools’ on the podium…
Banner recorded the event and there’ll be a videocast on their website soon.
Nielsen’s latest research quantified (with an elegant formulation) something that community owners, retailers and those working with ‘user-generated content’ already know:
In most online systems, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.
This seems to shock some people and undermines their view of UGC. To me, it seems normal.
We notice the inequality online because we can measure it. To take a retail, high street, comparison, the 90 people walk past your shop, the 10 go in and 1 person buys. This – to a retailer – looks like a 10% conversion rate, rather than 1%.
In Nielsen’s posting the only point with which I’d quibble is the term “lurker”. This implies that there’s no value derived from those visits.
Take, as an example, a product catalogue with user-contributed reviews. Only a few people can be bothered to contribute (think of TripAdvisor as an example). Those people have disproportionate power – but that’s no different to any system where there’s a binary distinction between people who “do something” and those who do nothing!
Being able to rate a review (x people found this review useful) can draw not only the occasionally-contributing 9% but also engage the other 90% (who may of course be influenced and/or informed by the content contributed).
From an etail perspective it’d have been useful to assess the purchasing behaviour of the 90% who ‘lurked’ (used? read? ignored?) the contributions – to see whether user generated content inequality is a good, bad or indifferent matter to overall sales levels.
Here’s a well-written summary of the BCS’s position on developing the “professional” aspects of IT.
As IT becomes the medium in which business progress is made, a strategic enabler and a tactical nightmare – all simultaneously! As computer literacy and management of IS/IT resources is required of every employee (from marketing to front line sales staff) there’s a point of view that holds us all to be IT people now.
The question for the BCS will be to differentiate between “skills” (eg certifiable capability in an application, coding language, architectural knowledge) and “professionalism”.
For my part I see professionalism as a code of behaviour, conduct and commitments that sit on top of an arcane body of specialist, necessary knowledge. One can have all of this knowledge without being professional, and equally act in a professional manner with a less than comprehensive knowledge.
The BCS is putting great energy into this initiative. Rightly so, since it will define the role, remit and indeed purpose of the BCS.
