Technically Philly Q&A
If I had to pick the lead-in to be used on every piece of press I get from today until the day I die, it’d be the lead-in that Chris Wink wrote for my Q&A on this past Friday’s edition of Technically Philly.
Alex Hillman partied last night.
TP‘s been keeping track of my antics for their entire lifespan. Geoff has said, “Technically Philly is our Rolling Stone” and I couldn’t agree more. Fact is, I’m beyond thankful for ALL of the press that’s helped tell my stories over my entire career. But TechnicallyPhilly’s coverage continues to be the most meaningful coverage to me.
After 50 posts during the lifetime of TechnicallyPhilly, Wink and I shared an hour talking about the past, present, and future as TechnicallyPhilly posted numero 51, a look at my worldview of Philadelphia these days.
Some choice pullquotes:
People in Indy Hall have stepped up into roles in Indy Hall and elsewhere. What’s interesting about creating a place where the services are not the core function is that it’s a blank canvas to do whatever you want to make of it. That creates a self-selecting group of people who aren’t going to wait for other people. It’s a pretty powerful engine.
I haven’t been counting lineage, but we’re finding leaders training and mentoring new leaders…. All these people who were coming together or getting closer four years ago are still here making Philadelphia a better place.
We’re still doing it our way. The DIY way and we have the ‘just get it done attitude.’ I’m proud of it.
You talked about Philadelphia needing to outpace other cities, when really, I want Philadelphia to out-last other cities.
As communities scale, fragmentation is not a bad thing.
Indy Hall, in four years, will touch more people’s lives. I don’t know what that means yet.
Philadelphia will always be home, but I know my future will involve being somewhere else for some time.
I have fallen in love with Philadelphia. I didn’t love it four years ago. I liked it enough to give it a shot, but now I genuinely love being here.
Read the whole she-bang on TP.
Find out details or sign up below. Save $75 by using the code DANGER.
A Hall Pass for Bureaucracy –
Code for America Philadelphia
I haven’t really had a chance to talk much about Code for America since the team was in Philly. I won’t go into what the program is or how it works, because frankly I don’t think I can do a better job than their about page. But I really enjoyed having the CFA fellows in town earlier this year.
Every interaction with them was thoughtful, interesting, inspiring, and fun.
While I was excited when I found out that Philadelphia was one of the pilot cities for the new program, I was admittedly dubious. Realistically, how effectively could this group glean enough information and insight in <30 days (28 days, since it was February), then leave Philadelphia and build something that citizens and the city will find mutually useful. It’s a pipedream. A pretty pipedream. The reality of the work product is still to be seen.
After the team had left Philadelphia at the end of February , I had a chance to think about the process we all went through and realized soemthing.
I don’t think the “thing” that the Code for America fellows build, or how it’s used, is the most valuable result of the program.
A Hall Pass for Bureaucracy
When I first heard about Code for America, what intrigued me the most was the concept of a “bolt-on” group of individuals who ultimately have to abide by the rules of operating within government and the civic ecosystem, but at the same time, are given a bit of a “hall pass” to move through the layers of bureaucracy.
The ability to jump across the silos of the institution, and to interact with genuine interest and intrigue across the entire spectrum of individuals with civic interest, from “Joe six-pack” through Mayor Michael Nutter and his staff.
I could be premature on this, but I think that the “hall pass” seems to be the magic of Code for America.
The vantage point and perspective the experience gives the fellows seemed to be unique, and I appreciated hearing about the experince from them. But it left something else behind that I hadn’t expected.
Hansel and Gretel Left a Trail of Breadcrumbs
Intentional or not, the Code for America fellows left a “breadcrumb trail” through the city to individuals, departments, and institutions that are ripe for being “hacked”. Not in the nasty LULZsec way, but in a really positive, civic way.
Since February, it’s felt easier to navigate through the same layers of bureaucracy and silos of institution, to find somebody who welcomes a citizen with benevolent self-interest. I now have a short list of people and departments that I have a pretty strong degree of confidence that if I approach them, I won’t be met with the usual, “What do you want?”, and instead a genuine interest, “What are you working on? Oh…that’s cool! Anything we can do to help? I bet somebody else around here would think that is interesting”.
This is anecdotal, but something I’ve seen for myself, but I’ve seen others experience as well so it’s not just me.
It’s also not a 100% transformation. There’s still plenty of “What do you want?”, still effective at getting in citizens’ ways. Still effective at getting in their own ways.
To be fair, I think that Philly was already on its way through a transition. There’s an interesting new guard of leadership, even if not all of the leadership is new. But Code for America helped heat-map where it’s happening the most. There are hot-spots, places where people like me, the citizens with a benevolent self-interest and a desire to see Philly totally kicking ass, can concentrate our efforts and see the greatest affect.
I think that the CFA process helped prime the pumps for the continued development of a new style of trusting relationship between city hall and citizens. Something that Indy Hall in particular is really good at, and we’ve been recognized for.
“Civic Fusion”
Jeff Friedman has quickly become one of my favorite people that works in City Hall. A paraphrased quote of his made it into a recent bit of press on AOL’s Travel Blog. Jeff’s title, according to this Flying Kite piece about Code for America’s 2012 reprise in Philadelphia, is Manager of Civic Innovation and Participation for the City of Philadelphia. I’m not exactly sure how Jeff describes this, but based on the projects I’ve seen him work closest with – not notably Code for America and the Open Data Philly initiative, are great examples of what he calls “Civic Fusion”. I’m going to try to break down his term into something that sounds less like a Vitamin Water flavor (hat tip to my #whyilovephilly co-conspirtators for that reference).
Remember how I talked about Code for America as a group of citizens that can easily “bolt on” to the civic infrastructure? Imagine if that became the rule, rather than the exception. Imagine if, when a group of citizens was working on something that would bring some form of benefit to the city, there was a known operating procedure for the city standing along side them and simply say “this is a good thing”.
Maybe a press quote. Maybe a public “thumbs up” from our Mayor or another appropriate government official. A vote of confidence from city hall goes a LONG way.
Even better, a genuine interest from government employees to be involved in these civic activities, not necessarily as a government employee but as a citizen themselves. It’s nice to see people like Philly’s Chief Cultural officer Gary Steuer reminding people that even though he’s a city official, he’s a citizen too. That’s an attitude I can get behind.
While the Flying Kite article seems to paint “Civic Fusion” in a light where the focus is “tools” and “the internet”, I think that this sort of relationship and interaction between citizens is ultimately the foundation for a construct that those “tools” and “the internet” will thrive in.
I’m not entirely sure what the end result should be, what it looks like, or if that was even part of the “plan” for the Code for America model to assist in unearthing.
But it doesn’t matter. I’m really glad its happening in Philadelphia.
Find out details or sign up below. Save $75 by using the code DANGER.
On Risk Taking
I spent some time this afternoon having an excellent conversation about many, many different things with my new friend Kira Campo. I’m hoping I can get a copy of her notes because we covered a lot of ground and I stopped taking notes when I realized I couldn’t read my own handwriting. But for the last hour I’ve had something in my head that needs to get out.
Before I go on, I want to point out that one of Indy Hall’s core assets has been it’s ability to build networks of trust. Back to that in a moment.
Risk taking means different things to different people. To an entrepreneur, it may mean betting it all on a big idea. To an artist, it may mean sharing or inciting an emotion. To many working class americans, it may be leaving a job that’s anywhere from “okay” to “god-awful” in pursuit of something better.
But I think that if you dissect successfully (read: healthy) risky behavior, it comes down to an either innate or learned ability to trust yourself.
And I’m not talking about skydiving, swimming with sharks, doing drugs, or having unprotected sex – that’s not risky, it’s dangerous.
“See what is possible in what you don’t yet understand, share what is possible in what you see differently.” – Hilary Austin at TEDxSoma
Kira reminded me of this quote that I tweeted from TEDxSoma back in the middle of June. I’d forgotten about it, but hearing it again put it in a new light.
If I think about the risk-takers I admire, they spoke out about what they thought was possible in what they saw differently and shared that with others. That took a large degree of trusting themselves to be more than right – but to not be alone in wanting to be right.
I think back to when I first met Chris Messina and Tara Hunt – these two people were operating on a completely different set of frequencies from the ones that my employer-at-the time was.
On one hand, the way they were thinking, talking, and acting was different from the environment that I actively wanted to remove myself from. On the other hand, and more importantly, that they validated my feelings that what I was thinking could be realized in the form of words and actions.
I went from being alone in my craziness to realizing that I could trust myself to be right. And that’s when I started to open my mouth and bring words into action, even when it seemed risky – because I learned to trust myself, and I understood that somebody else could be having the same experience I was having before I’d met Chris and Tara.
If they unlocked me, who could I unlock, simply by trusting that I wasn’t alone?
Risk taking is a polarizing activity no matter how you slice it. But when you lead risk taking with trust, rather than disillusionment or false hopes & expectations, amazing possibilities lie on the other side.
What are you doing to help people learn to trust themselves rather than operate on disillusionment and false hopes & expectations?
Find out details or sign up below. Save $75 by using the code DANGER.
On Monocultural Coworking
Single-demographic coworking misses the point – the thickest value of coworking I’ve seen is in creating a work construct where people who wouldn’t likely sit next to each other to work, find that possibility for themselves, and the possibilities derived from that opportunity are endless. But a room full of designers thinking like other designers, or a room full of realtors thinking like other realtors, miss out on that experience.
Developing these monocultural workspaces is a step in the wrong direction, and undermines the “possibility engine” and serendipity factor that coworking is so good at.
The rub is that a monocultural workspace do provide value. But I’m not convinced that it’s enough value to sustain past the idea of coworking being trendy.
The distraction of creating coworking that provides some value is inhibiting the ability to achieve FULL coworking value. It’s akin to the news and publishing industry being so reliant on advertising. YES, advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry – but it doesn’t generate enough thick value to keep the industries it supports afloat. The worst thing about advertising – and monocultural coworking – is that it works at all.
It just doesn’t work enough.
Find out details or sign up below. Save $75 by using the code DANGER.
Fear and Loathing in Phoenix – My 48 Hour Binge Experience at NewsFoo
I’m coming down from a 48 hour binge. Not one fueled by two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls, but a binge on the discomfort of immersing myself in someone else’s industry and the revelations and discoveries that come from escaping my own comfort zone.
I had the pleasure of sharing the last 3 days with around 150 hand-selected participants of NewsFooCamp, a first-time event organized by O’Reilly Media, Google, and the Knight Foundation. While the format of a self-organizing “unconference” is something I’m hardly new to, there were plenty of other experiences to this weekend that contributed to my altered state of mind.
what the hell am i doing here?
If I had to explain NewsFoo to someone BEFORE attending the event, I usually suggested that it was going to be an ad-hoc, self organizing conference focused on the future of news and journalism. This begged the common question: “So…how did you end up getting invited?”. Honestly, I haven’t the foggiest idea.
While I’m pretty sure that I’ll stick to getting in the paper by doing the things that I do best (including but not limited to shooting my mouth off), I have had some moments of clarity throughout this intoxicating experience, and thought I’d recount them here.
shutting up and listening.
First and foremost: I’m realizing how passionate I am about information. I’ve always been a bit of a pattern junkie, and I’m fundamentally fascinated by the human condition. I think it all comes down the fact that I’m a reasonably observant person, and I’m absolutely in love with the world around me and the information it provides me. From my obsessions with behavior patterns (of which my skill and understanding have been amplified by the last 4 years working on Indy Hall), to my love for people watching, I’m more than a bit of a voyeur.
NewsFoo gave me an opportunity to immerse myself in the meta-experience of a sea of information about the seas of information that are gathered, managed, and moved by the journalism industry.
As an aside, this is the 2nd time I’ve attended & participated in a conference that largely focused on an industry outside of my direct channel of expertise; last time, a corporate human resources conference, and this time, a conference about journalism and publishing.
I have to say, it’s liberating to be naive. If more smart people let themselves be naive instead of trying to know everything all the time, I think we’d all live happier lives. But I digress.
the “talking heads” really are burning down the house.
Outside of my own affirmations about my interest in the spread of information and ideas (and admittedly, my interest is often to a different end than someone in journalism or publishing), I got to spend this weekend looking at problems for the first time that most attendees of NewsFoo have been staring square in the eye for some time.
While I was in San Francisco last week, a good friend made the analogy to “building in a burning house”, and I feel that best describes the kind of problem solving that’s largely exercised by the journalism industry, at least based on what was represented this weekend.
crisis is a great a business model until it happens to your business.
News organizations seem to have designed their operations – and relatively, their business models – around crisis. It makes some sense, if you think about it, given the types of events and experiences that journalism historically has shown its most value. I think that the problem with this is that the only reason that some of these news organizations are still standing upright is because they’ve fallen and nearly smashed their faces at least once already, and they don’t seem to be any less likely to fall – or smash their faces – again.
It’s almost like the news industry is populated by people of a specific genotype of humans that are predisposed to chaos and crisis. In their work, that’s viewed as an asset, and allows them to cope with some pretty antagonistic working conditions. But from an outsiders point of view, I’m observing how this dynamic is being transferred over to the business side of the industry (the one that needs to be there to support the operations). The outcome seems to have afflicted the decision makers with some whacked out Stockholm Syndrome that keeps them from wanting to build something that resembles a sustainable business model.
And regardless of how innovative the people within the organizations are, if the leaders don’t want to change, the organization’s members are going to have a very hard time changing it for them.
and then tim o’reilly picked me up off the floor. thanks dude.
Another lesson I learned is that I need to stop trying new presentations that aren’t based on things that I’ve said or written about before. I’m awful at practicing a particular “speech” beforehand, and in fact, I’ve found that traditional scripted practice negatively impacts my ability to deliver a message as I intend to because I’m so caught up with what I thought I was going to say that I struggle to say it in the first place. I experienced this last night at NewsFoo Ignite, where I presented a new set of slides I titled “BUSINESSWEAK”, which was meant to be a critical analysis of the fact that news needs new business models, not just new versions of the old ones.
Given how supportive the group at NewsFoo has been, I don’t feel like I need to excuse myself for my awkward performance. Luckily, for all of my fumbling, one of the key points I wanted to make seemed to come out in an oddly important moment of clarity.
The train of thought that brought this idea into my presentation was more simple than I was trying to make it in my Ignite talk, but fellow Ignite speaker Andrew Walkingshaw pointed out to me, while JOURNALISM deserves a right to exist, the BUSINESS OF JOURNALISM doesn’t have that same right.
It’s pretty clear to me that the folks with the decision making power in these news organizations don’t see things that way, given how in another session, I watched some of those people actively dodge discussing hard questions in favor of the old and familiar.
why are we still talking about advertising?
Somehow, two sessions got jammed together: one was meant to address proposed laws to create opt-out techniques for reader tracking, while the the other was meant to explore non-advertising business models. While the former interests me from a technical challenge perspective, I came for the latter. I HOPED that they were using the former as a lens for the discussion of “ok, advertising as we know it really could be taken away from us and we’d be screwed, so let’s talk about creative alternatives.
And yes, there were a couple of ideas that I heard that were interesting. But the majority of the discussion kept coming back to models that still depended on a scramble for eyeballs in one way or another.
here’s where I rant.
Ladies. Gentlemen. Friends. Please get a grip on reality. ANY model that is reliant on the size of your readership that isn’t the placement of advertisements is likely just a permutation of advertising, and even if it’s not, it will suffer from the exact same problems that you’re experiencing with your advertising models!
And let me be clear and fair. I’m not in the camp of “advertising is evil”, “advertising doesn’t work”, or “advertising is wrong”.
What makes me want to slap the sandwich out of your hand and tell you to go make another one lest you go hungry, is that the time and resources spent hunting for the “missing variables” to make advertising work for this industry are a distraction from the option of exploring new concepts that don’t have the same dependencies that we’ve learned simply don’t exist in the reality we’re all lucky enough to call home.
I don’t claim to know how advertising works, but it seems to me that it works BEST when it provides sustained and balanced value for all parties involved (buyer, seller, recipient). But if it’s not working for you, why won’t you take a hard look at why it’s not working before you move onto something that doesn’t look the same but still has the same fundamental problems.
look inside, you’ll find what you’re looking for.
Tim O’Reilly was quoted by Sara Winge, FooCamp co-founder and organizer, by saying
“Have the courage to talk about philosophy and values, not just business models.”
I wasn’t in the room to know the context of this quote, but the most important word I see in it ISN’T courage, as some might expect. It’s just.
I spent the last 48 hours outside of my comfort zone being exposed to the current outcomes of those philosophies and values, and the sad reality is, that I don’t know how much longer those philosophies and values are going to be able to be sustained the way they are being funded.
What I do know is that when I’m faced with a really hard problem to solve, instead of trying to figure out what I don’t have, I figure out what I do have and how that will help me achieve my goals.
I believe that there are untapped opportunities to discover and implement new innovative ways for the news industry to stand on its own two feet in financial independence lie in those philosophies and values themselves.What the opportunities look like is still not 100% clear to me, but there’s some stuff in there that smells like real business to me.
I want to invite a discussion for the attendees of NewsFoo as well as those as passionate about news & journalism as I am about information and independence, to step outside of THEIR comfort zones for a little while and check your assumptions at the door. Bring those philosophies and values, though, because I think that by better understanding their value on contemporary society, together we can start finding some new business models that might actually rescue your asses from the burning building and let you focus on what you’re best at: finding amazing stories and making sure that they have an opportunity to be told.
That smell could also be remnants from the binge. But we won’t know unless we try, and I’m happy to be a part of that process.
Find out details or sign up below. Save $75 by using the code DANGER.
