web analytics

The Street of Sevilla Through the Eyes of a Russian Blogger

I have just seen a few absolutely wonderful photos of sun-filled Sevilla, photographed by the Russian LiveJournal blogger. One photo, featuring an old couple, is accompanied by the caption: “I imagine that when I and Igor are old we will still be walking hand in hand in a street of a beautiful city”. I totally share this dream, I also want to be able to walk hand in hand with my beloved in the streets of all cities in the world. Back to photography, though: some of the angles, even though this is colour photo, reminded me of the films by Ingmar Bergman, especially Wild Strawberries.

All photos are here: The Streets of Sevilla.

Why Is David Ogilvy an Advertising Genius

Commonly regarded as “the father of Advertising”, David Ogilvy was an avis rara at the time when being different was very new, not a mandatory practice. To be a Scotsman who went on to become a Madison Avenue giant is no little accomplishment, considering that in 1848 (the year of the Communist Manifesto and a series of revolutions in Continental Europe) Punch declared:

let us be a nation of shopkeepers as much as we please, but there is no necessity that we should become a nation of advertisers.

Fastforward to 2011, and Britain is doing pretty well, having probably as many advertisers as there are shopkeepers. The country has also produced two advertising genuises in the short space of 100 years who sadly have both passed away: David Ogilvy and Paul Arden.

I have now moved back to Moscow, but will be visiting England, and Manchester, regularly. I am unlikely to leave advertising (we’re all in it, anyway), I just think I will serve it better a woman-of-letters. I have just come back from one such flying visit, during which I bought Ogilvy’s Confessions of an Advertising Man. The book is fascinating and insightful, and given that it was first published in 1960s, it must be amazing to see it still being useful.

Don’t get me wrong: books must be useful for as long as possible, so I’m not at all displeased that Ogilvy’s maxims still matter. What I do find shocking is that even his criticism is still valid, and not only valid, but the instances at which the critique is directed are still present. In fact, they are persistent. As we know, genuine things (and people) are forerunners, but in Ogilvy’s case he was a forerunner of telling us what faults to expect to find in an agency. Here are a few examples.

Pay people peanuts, and you get monkeys. 

I wrote a post many months ago, comparing good professionals with a Chinese vase. What constitutes the real value of a Chinese vase? Is it the age, the form and decoration, the previous owners, or something else? How can you tell the difference between the real vase and a fake one? And why on Earth would you want to pay a lot of money to buy the real thing, only to put it in the corner and to marvel at it? Good professionals are the Chinese vases. They are expensive, awkward, and nearly obsolete – but they also make a huge difference for your status and your campaign. You’ve got to pay them their worth. If in doubt, consult this other statement by Ogilvy: 


If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants. 

Alas, it looks like the world is shrinking in size all too rapidly. 

Still on the subject of copywriting: 


Good copy can’t be written with tongue in cheek, written just for a living. You’ve got to believe in the product. 

You cannot put it better, and yet how many people out there write and rewrite texts only to make a living? They rewrite ridiculously huge numbers of text for a ridiculously small payment. Not only do they not believe in the product, they often don’t even know it well. To my credit, when I was once being urged to “simply rewrite” articles about cars, I refused. I hadn’t had the expertise, nor personal interest in cars. There were other clients in whose products I was much better versed, so why shouldn’t I have been writing for them? I feel that this sometimes is interpreted as the lack of subordination, but I can only abide by what my professionalism dictates me. It is extremely sad that Ogilvy died in the same year as blogs had started (1999). I wish he was still alive today – the Internet surely needs a slap on the face from him.  

I avoid clients for whom advertising is only a marginal factor in their marketing mix.

I wish more advertisers had the balls to resign a (prospective) client like this, or not to approach them in the first place. Even though they are not the same, copywriting and PR have grown very close in the last few years, so the client has to be passionate about advertising – although he shouldn’t also forget another Ogilvy’s maxim: why keep a dog and bark yourself? 

Advertising is a business of words, but advertising agencies are infested with men and women who cannot write. They cannot write advertisements, and they cannot write plans. They are helpless as deaf mutes on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera. 

To add to this, they also make mistakes. I am always willing to accept it, if someone is writing in their second language. But I genuinely cannot find enough understanding for those who didn’t perfect their native language. 

I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.  

Sadly, this still stands true, many decades after it’s been first written. Now, don’t be confused: research IS important. The better you know the product, as Ogilvy proved many times, the better you sell it. The best advertising doesn’t draw attention to itself, and when you know the product your passion naturally shines forth and infects everyone. It is important to regard your product as your cause, to be a Don Quixote, although not as idealistic – we’re in business, after all.

However, the way research is often being used by agencies, it is limiting creative opportunities and denies the possibilities for growth. It is used to tell you what to do and what not to do, but more often that not, it suggests whose examples to follow, i.e. to imitate. It is therefore necessary to quote another adage: 

If you ever have the good fortune to create a great advertising campaign, you will soon see another agency steal it. This is irritating, but don’t let it worry you; nobody has ever built a brand by imitating somebody else’s advertising. Imitation may be the “sincerest form of plagiarism”, but it is also the mark of an inferior person. 

There is one more fault that Ogilvy notes that I observed at the last agency I worked for in 2009; after that I went back to working for myself, which is harder but more fulfilling. At the agency the following was true: 

Most agencies send large delegations to present their case to prospective clients. The head of the agency limits his own participation to introducing a series of subordinates, who take turns haranguing the prospect. I have always preferred to make the presentation myself. The final choice of agency is almost always made by the head of the client company, and chairmen should be harangues by chairmen. I have also found that frequent changes of speaker lead to confusion with other agencies which are competing for the account. One orchestra looks like every other orchestra, but there is no confusing one conductor with another. The agencies with the best record in new-business solicitation rely on their leader to put on solo performances.

Needless to say, the leader should know his industry inside out, but rather often than not, which was true about the agency in question, this is not the case. But let’s forget the agencies; while it’s good to be surrounded by faithful supporters, if you are running a business, then it is you who should represent it. After all, leaders grasp nettles.

I could quote you entire Ogilvy’s book because a lot of what he says relates not only to advertising, but to our conduct in life in general. It pays to remember Arden’s words – “we are all in advertising” – so whether you are selling directly, online, or figuratively, The Confessions of an Advertising Man is a must. I will get back to the start of the post: is it not shocking that many years on this book is still so valid in ideas, as in criticism? It is not amazing that after years of reading how not to shoot ourselves in the foot, a lot of people still do it with remarkable persistence?

Just to round it off on a pleasant note, here are some generic aphorisms: 

Develop your eccentricities while you are young. That way, when you get old, people won’t think you’re going gaga. 

The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.

Next to the theatre, advertising is probably least secure of all careers.  

The secret of long life is double careers. One to about age sixty, then another for the next thirty years.  

Zarya Newspaper – Moscow, 29 November 1915

In our family archive we have several newspapers that date back to the pre-Revolution times. One of them has just marked its 90th anniversary, and if you flick through the pages of the embedded document you will notice the state of the pages. I must admit it’s amazing how well the newspaper got preserved, given that it survived a fair share of peregrinations.

Zarya Newspaper-29 November 1915 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=45517052&access_key=key-2gqucoadnfeaes2qi5hg&page=1&viewMode=book

NOTE: the document is pretty huge, so I decided to allow readers to download it from Scribd: Zarya Newspaper 29 November 1915. Needless to say, if you want to use it or have queries about the content, please reference me and my blog, thanks!

About half of the paper is what you call the belles-lettres. They are short stories about life on the front line or the actions of the civilians. It is noticeable that in 1915 Russia’s attitude to the First World War was pretty much the same as that of the English or French. The participation in the conflict was perceived as something of a solemn duty for a soldier to fulfil. To this end, there were regular despatches from the front, galleries of heroic nurses and men-of-arms. And at the same time the newspaper published romantic stories, poems, as well as satyrical pieces. In the 29th of November edition there was a story about a girl called Lydia who was the object of affection of two men, one was a young student, another was a mature man. Both loved her, although they expressed it differently. And when both went to war, she began to write letters to both of them. Even though she only loved the older man, she considered herself responsible for sustaining the hope and the desire to live in the student. The story would most likely fly in the face of some of today’s ideas about relatioship… or perhaps it would confirm certain things we don’t like admitting.

Christmas in Literature: O’Henry

The magi, as you know, were wise men–wonderfully wise men–who brought gifts to the Babe in the manger. They invented the art of giving Christmas presents. Being wise, their gifts were no doubt wise ones, possibly bearing the privilege of exchange in case of duplication. And here I have lamely related to you the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest. O all who give and receive gifts, such as they are wisest. Everywhere they are wisest. They are the magi.

O’Henry, The Gifts of the Magi (full English text).

Дары волхвов на русском.

Also, below is a SlideShare presentation with materials for a class on O’Henry’s short story.

 

The Portrait of the Russian Blogosphere

I was pleasantly surprised to discover the project by the Moscow photographer Kirill Kuzmin – Bloggers’ Portraits in Black and White. The project that has started a few months ago aims at creating a classic photogallery of Russian bloggers. Those who have already taken part range from a cello player through an icon painter and personal shopper to a ballet reviewer.

(Incidentally, I don’t think there are many cello players, icon painters and ballet maniacs in the West who have discovered blogging… still).

According to our agreement, I will be posting short interviews with some of the participants, which will be not a small task considering that I have to edit and translate, too. The first post, however, is dedicated to Kirill himself, and below is our short chat in Russian.

In brief, here’s what we talked about.

http://static.video.yandex.ru/lite-audio/marylou/f6fj9odfb7.1007/

Although he was working as a designer and illustrator for a magazine for a long time, Kirill has only started taking photography seriously in 2001. He found inspiration in the work of the father Nikolai, a friar at the Optina Monastery. Later on he also took inspiration from the work of Laslo Gabany (an incredibly successful wedding photographer as well as a lovely person), Mikhail Kalamkarov (one of the masters of contemporary pictorial photography), and Alexander Slyusarev (a legendary Russian photographer). His favourite genre is portraiture. I asked him if he liked introducing certain metaphorical objects: for instance, I love snapping streetlights, a friend of mine is mad about angels, another friend is equally mesmerised by doors of all sizes and colours. As far as Kirill is concerned, there is nothing more fleeting and interesting for a photographer than a human nature. I dare say the galleries that have already been completed prove the point.

ottenki_serogo.livejournal.com

Russian blogosphere develops primarily via LiveJournal and LiveInternet as platforms, and this partially explains why the culture of commenting is possibly slightly more widespread than in the West. This is especially true of the author’s responses; whether you are a mere personal blogger or a celebrity publisher, you respond to comments. Certain LJs regularly develop discussions and even disputes through comments. The range of topics is, frankly, overwhelming, as well as the ranks of personalities. Blogging has been incredibly popular among politicians, journalists, (wo)men-of-arts even before Ashton Kutcher assembled his stupendous Twitter following. Having said so, the topic of privacy should make a curious subject for discussion, while HRs are still to wake up to the Euro-American practice of checking out an employee’s social networking life before offering them a job. There is a cliche in my homeland that “Russia is ahead of the whole planet“, and it seems that this is true about blogging, as well – even though the readership may be primarily Russian, too.

In this post I used photos of myself, as well as four of the participants. Sergei is a popular Russian citizen journalist who occasionally reports from punk and Goth weddings in Moscow. In all seven years in Manchester I haven’t seen so many punk vows being taken so regularly. Boris is a cello player at the Bolshoi Theatre and the creator of Russia’s leading forum about classical music. Evgeniy and Mikhail each write about their personal interests and offer freebies and tickets to their readers; both represent great examples of establishing relationships with readers. And Julia… no introduction needed.

The project’s gallery – Bloggers Portraits in Black and White.

Kirill Kuzmin (фотограф Кирилл Кузьмин), an official site

Kirill’s blog in English

A Billionaire Handbook (On “Social Network” the Film)

I‘ve just come back from the screening of “Social Network” in one of the central cinemas in Moscow. By the look of it, Moscow bloggers, the users of Vkontakte.ru and Loveradio listeners had the chance to see the film before everyone else: the film’s official screenings start tomorrow.

Just this morning I was thinking about why people never seem to get what they want. Clearly, it is because of three things:

  1. they do it wrong;
  2. they do it with wrong people;
  3. they don’t want it badly enough.

And that is really it. “Wrong” may be outdated or inappropriate for the kind of work you’re doing. Having right people around you is also very important. Not the kind of people who are always happy with whatever you do either because they don’t care that you become better than you are, or because they are afraid that you may forget them once you’ve taken off. The right people are those who help you grow and who want you to grow. And, last but not least, you’ve got to want it so bad that you live and breathe your idea.

You think this modus operandi is too good to be true? Welcome Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). Of course, the story of Facebook is far more complex than what can be jammed into one and half hours of screening time. The creators omitted the take-off of Facebook in Europe, and after a while only a Social Media pro can match the scene in the film with the actual date. The issues with privacy, sharing, and data, as well as the entire social “paraphernalia” in the guise of groups, causes, etc., are left behind. Instead, at the heart of the film is the story of one Harvard geek who was never accepted into any clubs and who thus decided to create a club where everyone could belong.

What separates Zuckerberg’s character from the rest is this absolute refusal to be a loser. Nerd or snobbish he can be, one thing is clear: the guy had such complete belief in himself that many of us wish we could borrow from him. He was studying at Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the world. He lived on campus, pretty much free from mundane concerns. And there was one small “but”: he was rejected by a girl he fancied a lot. The inception of the social network had therefore started in the most perfect conditions: the absence of problems and a tiny bit of despair. Free but impassioned mind allows you to create masterpieces.

Zuckerberg was so good at programming that he was obviously doing “it” right; what is more important, he was doing it with the right people. Some gave him a hand with algorithms, others helped with programming, some dropped ideas in conversations, but in the end nobody was able to do what he was doing. Most importantly, he was tapping into the right idea – even if it was not entirely his. Not only people around him were ‘right’ for his project, he was giving to those who registered with Facebook the ‘right’ set of functions. He was in the right conditions, and he was extending and multiplying them.

The conflict between Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) is the battle of minds, and both were right for Zuckerberg in one way or another. Eduardo supplied Mark with resources for Facebook to actually happen; Sean’s doubtless entrepreneurial skill helped to propel the social network to the global level and make it a worldwide success. And even though Sean got really close to Mark, the latter didn’t let him off for letting Eduardo down. When the time came, Zuckerberg somehow managed to marry business thinking with a little bit of old school friendship.

As a film, Social Network is by no means a phenomenon or even a groundbreaking movie. It is well made, and Armie Hammer, in particular, does amazing work playing the Winklevoss twins. Justin Timberlake looks promising, although I’d like to see him in more introspective, “classical” films. Yet the film’s remarkable achievement is in that it shows in a short space of time how to grab the chance and not to leave any stone unturned until the big goal is hit. Is Zuckerberg good? Yes. Is he nice? No. After all, the question was never about money – it was about “being the CEO, bitch” and making history. He did both.

Would you?

Photo credit – Facebook Gets Movie Treatments as Social Media at High (International Business Times, 15 September, 2010).

Christmas on the Web: Doodles, Logos, and Gifts

Big” events usually offer a great opportunity to various sites to add that “festive” touch to their logos. Google has been prolific for a number of years with Google Doodles, but what about other sites?

Starting with Google, this has been their Doodle throughout the build-up to Christmas. Cards did change, though. On the other hand, Bing dedicated its entire mainpage to a festive display.

Surprisingly, Twitter did not add any festive notes to its logo or main page, and neither did YouTube or Flickr. Quite unlike FriendFeed that revamped their logo Xmas-style. And it only seems to be LiveJournal that showed some festive love in their logo.

And out of many Social Networks, my eye caught the German StudiVZ and the Russian Odnoklassniki.ru and VKontakte.ru making an effort to mark the day on the “surface” of their websites.

Finally, a few days ago I’ve received the link to Google’s Gift. “Because charities are experiencing their toughest year in decades, we have committed $20 mln (£12.4mln) to helping those who help us all. Our gift to you is a gift to them”, reads this page.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to everyone!

Visit Manchester and Sweet Mandarin

More and more people are visiting Manchester these days, and admittedly there are more and more reasons to do so. FutureEverything (festival-formerly-known-as-Futuresonic), Manchester International Festival and Manchester Literature Festival, Queer Up North, you name it. This is not to mention the beloved Manchester United and the growing MediaCityUK in Salford Quays.

To help you glide effortlessly through the gamut of events, Visit Manchester maintains a very useful site that is now accompanied by a blog and a Facebook page. The work of a prodigious Mancunian all-rounder, Martin Bryant, both blog and FB page will keep you well updated about what’s going on in our sunny city that occasionally boasts generous spells of rain.

When you visit Manchester, do pay a visit to Norther Quarter. The video below produced by Martin features Peter O’Grady, one of Manchester’s official tour guides, who in the matter of 5 minutes will tell you a lot of interesting facts about this bohemian and very characteristic part of Manchester. When you are travelling to Manchester, you can also download an audio guide produced by Phil Nash at Walk Talk Tours.

And when you have seen everything Peter and Phil told you about and got sufficiently hungry, go to Sweet Mandarin – the little ‘Chinese dragon’ that has just been named the best Chinese restaurant in the UK by Gordon Ramsay (follow the link to read about the tough battle against Edinburgh-based Chop-Chop). Set away from the maddening hustle and bustle of Chinatown (and Yang Sing restaurant), Sweet Mandarin has long been one of the most innovative eateries in the UK, pioneering the use of Twitter, blog, and Flickr, to draw attention to the place. Family run, the restaurant is the place for regular get-togethers of Mancunian Twitterati and Flickr photographers, and the homebase of a cookery school. In short, if you ever wondered how to cook something with Social Media, Sweet Mandarin can teach you many a lesson.

I’ve eaten at Sweet Mandarin during Futuresonic 2009, it was one of the places that offered discounts to delegates. I had the pleasure of trying their signature Claypot Chicken dish… that was praised by Ramsay and his team. If my memory is correct, the dish is cooked after a family recipe, and it is delicious! (Should I have said “del.icio.us”, to keep up with the SocMed tone?).

Above all, the restaurant staff is really friendly, attentive, and I am personally grateful for some advice they’ve given me. If or when you are visiting Manchester, do visit Sweet Mandarin. And in the meantime, if you are on Twitter, send them your greetings.  Congratulations on the deserved win!

Sweet Mandarin Interior

(I took the photo during one the Twitterati meet-ups in 2009).

Social Tools, Internet, and Future Culture

I wrote previously that I went to Futuresonic 2009. There will be another Futuresonic related announcement here in the next day or two; also Futuresonic now arrives rebranded as Future Everything, and they have a nice event attached to the reborn festival.

The text below has appeared previously elsewhere (orig. published on May 27, 2009). After all the pleasant events of the last week and looking at the number of bloggers who follow this blog now (and the subjects of their blogs) I thought useful to transfer the post here and see where we all stand re: blogs and how the Internet has influenced our culture, values, etc.

The talk is 45 mins long, which is why the text below is really a skimmed version of what you will hear if you listen to the audio. It is hardly a commentary, so whoever wants to get the ball rolling and say where they agree or disagree, and especially how they experience the changing impact the web has had on them, please be my guest. As I am in the process of paying visits to all friendly blogs, Twitter accounts, and blog introductions, here is a post by Lethe Bashar, Is the Internet Killing Culture?

Stowe Boyd, the leading authority on social applications and their impact on society, media and business and a self-confessed “presentist”, was speaking about how social tools have been shaping our culture at Futuresonic 2009. Boyd coined the term “social tools” back in 1999. He spelt out the idea in the last newsletter he sent out before he turned to blogging. Considering the number of articles that hailed 2009 as the year of Social Media, it is interesting to see how long it has taken the world to wake up to the call of the social web. This also confirms that Social Media is by no means new.

Social tools were defined by Boyd as “a new category of software intended to augment social systems; the social tools are intended to shape culture”. The distinction was drawn between the culture-shaping tools and the social tools that were improving communication. The web resembles the global village where everything is pushed together, and in this context the most important thing about the web is not the latent data, or servers, etc., but how people interact with each other, talk to each other, and how they are being changed by these conversations and connections. The web is the prime artefact of our civilisation, and for this reason social tools and their impact on people as individuals are near and dear to Stowe Boyd’s heart. Web stands out because it’s not primarily physical. The impact is also uncertain: it will emerge at a later stage, as we are shaped by the culture that we build. Right not, however, the cost of investment in making of this culture – let alone the value of culture itself – remains largely unexamined.
A couple of points are of the biggest interest, as far as the impact of social tools on our personal and business communications is concerned. Social tools are social insofar as they are primarily designed to support social relations, and as such their estimation is based on connectiveness rather than efficiency. The prime example here is a simple Instant Messanger (IM) that can serve as the indicator of presence or availability of a person we are trying to connect with. If people are connected on Skype or MSN, then they are likely to check the status of their correspondent before they make a phone call or write an email. This doesn’t stop here, as people may be seeking help or advice, and hence they are likely to ask a question via the IM, the hassle of using an email client is reduced. Through this, Boyd stresses, occurs a shift in work ethics and workplace behaviour. One of the traits is manifested in people’s willingness to trade off some personal productivity for connectedness – a kind of new social cohesion.
The above results in unintended consequences of shifting from one mode of communication to another, from email through IM to Twitter; or, to use the same Gabriel Garcia Marquez quote uttered by Boyd in his Futuresonic talk, from secret life through private life to public life. Arguably, we have already seen this with blogging, or generally with sharing information about ourselves online. Yet however instantaneous blogging may be, it is not as real-time as posting short messages via Twitter or FriendFeed. As a result, our understanding and response to the notion of privacy is constantly challenged, and continuously evolves. What comes to mind is the phrase I came across on someone’s blog a while ago: the person said they were sharing the public side of their private life. I found this expression fascinating, and what the rise of Twitter demonstrates is that this public side of our private lives may in fact be bigger than we think – or would like to think.

Twitter has currently got the kind of monopoly similar to what AOL had had with its IM product. Microblogging appears to be the future of communications not only due to its convenience and proliferation, but also due to how it helps to further change the tempo and efficiency of communications. The opennes is the key, and Boyd illustrated the importance of this on the example of JP Rangaswami‘s experiment at Dresdner Bank when he forced the usage of an open email on his colleagues. The impact was that his employees were very interested in what responses he sent to people. Graded by privacy and protection levels, emails are very private; chats and IMs are usually guarded by a chat owners who decide whether or not to block or restrict a user’s access. Twitter is the most egalitarian, which we recently saw in the influx of celebrities to the platform: it is possible to be in the same space as Stephen Fry, although it still doesn’t mean that he will automatically follow you back.
And some straight-forward points from the talk:

Edglings are people who spend large amounts of their time being connected to other people. This is a new way of defect from mass identity, and increasingly – the use of a new social identity shaped by the use of social tools, to connect with others. “I” is the sum of my connections.
“Democratisation of media” only means that it’s now cheap to go online, connect, publish, interact – but it’s not democratic. It’s more like a return to a pre-industrial social scale. The Internet is egalitarian in the sense that anyone can relate/speak to anyone – but it doesn’t support equality or levelling. Inequality still strongly manifests itself through a user’s reputation or authority.

The rise of the edglings is directly responsible for the collapse of traditional media. The media doesn’t paint the correct picture, when reflecting on this fact, instead presenting the situation in such way as if the media tastes have somehow dramatically changed. But in truth there is a power shift occurring. People begin to decide to themselves to whom and how they relate, and where they outsource the information that is interesting or important to them. This will only accelerate, since the process is now irreversible.

Social equals “me” first – for some people this sounded selfish. But it’s not selfish to realise that a person is the centre of their own universe. The shift occurs from mass information to friend information. We’re thus moving into a new kind of tribalism. People’s understanding of the world will shift to a more granulated identity, and mass identification will become less important.

“Web is amazingly conservative” – shall this serve as the best illumination of the fact that it’s all about people, and that if we want to bring about any change, then we will have to start with ourselves, instead of investing hopes into an idea, institute, or tool?

The world will be becoming more partial, and manifestantly subjective, to the point when we choose who to work with. Neotribalism is going to step in place a traditional, “industrial” family, although this is likely to be the change that will take the longest to arrive. Even the current web media is still not particularly social, although the social television possibly has the biggest potential. The most troublesome area is the environment.

What people are trying to do on the web isn’t really about people they’re interacting with, and it’s not the things that are being discussed – it’s about self-discovery. And on the religious level, we may move towards the new mysticism.

The core issue is that we’re moving towards a re-identification of ourselves.

error: Sorry, no copying !!