www.nickhodge.com

Pan­el­ists

(attend­ance: 50 100 people, thanks Cathy for doing a cor­rect count from the back of room!)

Philip Sim, CEO, Media Con­nect (blog squash) stop here for web 2.0 real­ity check. hates the word web 2.0. totally polemic to what the web is about, inter­net; fix bugs. Online news/SNS/blogging/SaaS. None of this stuff is new. A rebirth in pas­tel veneer.

Dar­ren Niemke, rea­dify. man­ages pro­fes­sional development. how to cap­ture atten­tion etc from enter­prise. asp.net dood

Des Walsh, busi­ness coach. enjoy­ment of blogging/social media space. star­ted blog­ging as another coach as a method of mar­ket­ing. think­ing home busi­ness. Post blog­ging from a busi­ness person’s pov. linkedin blog­gers. here because of twitter.

Jane O’Connell dir­ector products and strategy at ninemsn. how bal­ance con­tent gen­er­ated by audi­ence vs. professionally?

Michael Platt Dir­ector, MS Cor­por­ate, WebApp Architecture.

Ques­tion 1. do you see the value of blog­ging? is there a real value

Philip Value of blog­ging, depend­ing how much time you put into it. blog­ging is the best form of social net­work­ing. busi­ness com­mu­nic­at­ing your cred/authority on a par­tic­u­lar topic

Dar­ren: access to people within MS; can hear thoughts from people who you not pre­vi­ous have access to. more know­ledge, thoughts, opin­ions. blog­ger­sphere can have con­ver­sa­tions. swarm man­ner, swarms over a prob­lem, solves it, and moves on

Des: con­nect with people over­seas busi­ness (books) and other oppor­tun­it­ies. People know more about me. small busi­ness: lin­coln sign­mak­ing busi­ness; $350k, 10% from blog 2005

Jane: in mass audi­ence; niche, pas­sion, like minded com­munity. MSM, lar­ger issues. Pull out a sen­ti­ment. Break­ing stor­ies, story after story.

Michael: diary resume, jobs. people look at what people. thou­sands of MS blog­gers to make the com­pany more trans­par­ent. we are a bunch of people. a per­sonal view of the com­pany, and feed­back to reduce stu­pid decisions. MS more intouch with cus­tom­ers due to blog­ging and the two way conversation.  Lots more ways to get input from the field and customers/reality.

Ques­tion 2: grumpywookie.com; floods of posts/twitters/feeds/email inform­a­tion mgmt deal with it?

Philip: no time to twit­ter. scep­tical, as its a time sap rather time approval. twit­ter improve busi­ness by 10% will start to twitter

Dar­ren: twitter/facebook/web2 tools as know­ledge worker 2.0 use when need to. choose right tools.

Des: some­times over­whealmed. Bun­nings example, choos­ing the right tools. face­book at the moment. face­book as basic com­mu­nic­a­tions tool.

Michael: remem­ber, haven’t got to the end road. focus­ing in on areas. new tools to find what you want. (nb: go particls). Only begun to scratch the sur­face of search­ing. the thing bey­ond search.

Com­ment: editor/condenses it, good writers (Stephen Withers)

Ques­tion 3: cen­sor­ship? low­est com­mon denominator

Jane: issues in related to world as a pub­lisher, rather than free for all (expos­ure) can’t just put everything up there. web provides a plat­form for lunatics

Michael: prob­lem with people “blog smart”. don’t be stu­pid. no cen­sor­ship. sorta works. internal self-jumping. mop­ping up the little puddles are around. when people leave, then comments/blogging. inter-company issues. find out what hap­pens, lead rather than follow.

Comment4: rod­ney, blog scooped journ­al­ist. Corp blogs as method of gain­ing the upper hand.

Ques­tion 4: journ­al­ism vs. blog­gers. blog­ger expert in field vs journ­al­ist. respons­ib­il­ity of journalist.  where is the line.

Jane: a blog is a stream of con­cious­ness, con­ver­sa­tion. “real­ity tv” con­trived. vs. struc­tured, radio, print. role for both. eg: news cov­er­age. local phone cam­eras, etc. floods, 90 pho­tos sub­mit­ted from “punters” to roof level: cam­era­men couldn’t get through. 200,000 people viewed images.

Philip: dis­tinc­tion is not use­ful: blog­gers, pro­fes­sion­als vs ama­teurs. Doing it as a job, cer­tain level of responsibility.

Des: read some­thing from a journ­al­ist, no com­ment but­ton. same in cor­por­ate field. work­shop with con­ser­vat­ive fin­an­cial com­pany. you are going to get left behind. people have an enti­tle­ment to inter­act with com­pan­ies. as a con­sumer, not my respons­ib­il­ity you need comment.

Jane: can fig­ure out what res­on­ates: how do you know? blog­ging it helps, has feedback

Ques­tion 5: is that app you are buid­ling web 2.0 compatible.

Frank: five people, six definitions

Philip: web 2.0 is about a period in time, not a product. tip­ping point broad­band, pri­vacy changes, advertising.

Dar­ren: “web 2.0 sites” based on name gen­er­a­tion. A web2 site can be picked as its excit­ing. emo­tional con­nec­tion. (Phil hur­rumph) user exper­i­ence ele­ment (delic8genius now owes frank­arr a beer)

Des: busi­ness own­ers can cre­ate, make it easier, without great cost, encour­age with their cus­tom­ers. more transparency

Jane: stuff that helps you use the web better

Michael: jour­ney we are going online. Web x.0 is silly; a new way of using tech­no­logy and build­ing it into their lives; social aspect. IP law struggles with the new way of interacting.

Ques­tion 6: pri­vacy, journos go to jail for pro­tect­ing sources; how do you become a anonym­ous blog­ger. point at which lun­at­ics and reality. 

Des: people have a com­ment anonym­ously. some people will spend lots of money find­ing source, depend­ing on how much money you’ve got. Are legal constraints

Philip: myspace/facebook. free busi­ness : dirt files, black­mail­ing them. massive pri­vacy back­last, black­mail as a mech­an­ism of money mak­ing (badly)

Ques­tion 7: the law and blog­ging. blog­ging union

Michael: may see uni­on­isa­tion of blog­ging. the law, in another coun­try how can you pro­sec­uted for that. lot of changes in the legal sys­tem to follow.

Frank: calls it a day, time over.