Mark's Cheeky Posterous

Let's continue this somewhat profound discussion over drinks.

Mark Drapeau Launches Publicyte, a Digital Magazine About Innovation for Civic Good

This past Tuesday, I launched Publicyte, a digital magazine published by Microsoft about the people, places, and technologies driving civic innovation. I'll be the editor-in-chief of the publication, and we'll have writers from all kinds of interesting backgrounds. It's part of my work at our new Office of Civic Innovation, based in Microsoft's US Public Sector group. Check out the site and let me know what you think: http://publicyte.com

 

What Happens To FourSquare Mayors When a Place Closes?

The famous (and infamous) Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC has been the site of famous speeches, debutante balls, and the occasional dalliance with a lady of the night. But it has been in the news lately because they announced that they are closing one of its more prominent features - the Town and Country Bar just off its lobby, a premiere schmoozing location at noon, night, and very-late night.

Last night I went to a birthday party there, timed well to get some people in Town and Country for possibly the last time ever. Numerous people, tech-savvy socialite types, were "checked in" on FourSquare, announcing to the world that they were there, at that moment, downing cocktails. Thrilling. I will admit, I was one of the bunch.

More interesting, however, is that the "Mayor" on FourSquare, someone I know, was also at the party. He's a longtime fan of T&C and clearly goes there (along with his phone) a lot.

But on Saturday night, his glorious reign as Mayor will end, because the location will no longer exist. Alas, they are most likely moving a Thomas Pink clothing store into that location, and building out a more modern lounge of some kind elsewhere in the hotel.

How does this work, then, in the virtual world? Can he and others protest the closing in a digital space, continuing to check into a bar we wish we could go to? Can people shopping at Thomas Pink check into T&C legitimately? They are, in fact, in the right geographical location.

Is it legitimate to check in to historical places on FourSquare and other location-based services? Its not like OpenTable, after all, where you have to actually check in with a hostess and purchase food... no one's really tracking the location-based game very much, and you can check into things that don't involve commerce, like the infamous alleys and bathroom stalls and apartments people viciously fight over the Mayorships of for bragging rights at hipster tech meetups.

Another question: What if the Mayflower Hotel keeps the name of Town and Country for its brand recognition, but moves it elsewhere in the hotel? It's the same street address, but a different physical location at a finer grain. Is the check-in still the same check-in, or does a new entry have to be created to start all over? Is it fair for the original Mayor to have such a headstart, in a sense, pre-checking into a place that's not open yet?

And more philosophically, what if the name does change, and the location inside the hotel, but customers and fans argue that since there's still only one lounge inside the hotel, that it's the same place. Then, do you have two competing sets of check-in-ers, the old crowd and the new crowd?

This sounds silly, but if FourSquare, Gowalla, and others are going to evolve into legitimate businesses, at some point commerce needs to come into the equation in a serious way. The aforementioned OpenTable has infrastucture, relationships... and trust. It's not clear at all what the Mayflower thinks of FourSquare, and for the moment it doesn't matter. But 9 months from now, if they are offering deals to customers, there shouldn't be this kind of ambiguity.

A fundamental challenge with location-based services, mobile access to apps and information, and digital spaces and augmented reality is that the companies involved with making the software we use to interact do not provide much in the way of thought leadership on these issues.

How To Have The Right Sized Disaster For Ideal Media Coverage

It's hard to escape the story about the Chilean miners finally coming to the surface today.  I have CNN on in the office, and they're following the miners one by one.  The 18th one is out... the 19th one is out... awaiting the 20th...
 
It's clearly a touching, emotional story.  But why is it getting so much more coverage, and personal, human coverage, than, say the floods in Pakistan?  They're roughly equally far away and "foreign," and Americans are equally likely to have no idea where either of these places are nor know anyone there.
 
In Pakistan, there are over a million people who are homeless, with thousands killed.  Is that not more significant on a human level than the Chilean miner story?
 
My guess is that the disaster in Pakistan is simply too big.  How can you get into the human stories when there's just an overwhelming number of them?
 
Let's think about some smaller "disasters, emergencies, and situations" (DES's).  The U.S. wars in the Middle East have a death toll in the relatively low thousands.  We don't see coverage of each individuals' life story and photos and family interviews and so on in real time, but it is a tractable enough number where each warrior's name and photo can be printed in the newspapers and on websites.  They can all be invited to events and so on.
 
I think 9/11 is similar.  A roughly very similar toll on order-of-magnitude - not dozens (like Chile) and not tens and tens of thousands (like Pakistan).  All the families could be contacted.  We know who died, and where, and why.  Their faces can be shown.  They can be honored. 
 
So it seems like there is a relationship between the number of affected people, the severity of the DES's, and the media coverage.  Given that the DES is fairly awful, the less people involved, from a strictly media analysis point of view, the better.  With less people affected, the coverage will be real-time, human, individualized, 24/7. 
 
If the number of people is too overwhelming, the problem becomes nearly intractable it seems, and what we know of hundreds of thousands of people being affected comes from a big interview or in-depth feature with someone who is "representative" of the people - which of course is probably far from true. 
 
And in the middle, there is a decent amount of personal coverage, even if it is slight (like a photo and name in a major newspaper), yet the event is mainly covered in a general manner.
 
So, to people on Twitter and elsewhere comparing the media coverage to things like the Pakistani floods and wondering why there is not "equal coverage or treatment," I think that's a big part of the answer.
 
 

Can Celebrities Go Too Far In Pushing Their Causes?

Today I published a longer piece called Networked Nonprofits: The Eva Longoria Case Study, which is about a recent, massive use of social media by celebrities to raise $540,000 for a Haitian orphanage. While certainly "good" was done, there are also questions about how much tweeting about a cause is too much, and what audiences expect on these new media channels.
 
There are also some serious questions about the overall value of online advocacy, versus real-life involvement in causes. In the coming issue of The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell writes a piece called Small Change, where he discusses "why the revolution will not be tweeted." After describing and analyzing a similar situation (that of Darfur awareness and fundraising on Facebook), “Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice… It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.”
 
What do you think of these articles? Can people supporting causes abuse social media channels to the point where it becomes information pollution, or do the ends justify the means for "social good"? And what do you think of Gladwell's comments that online channels make it easier to express your support for a cause, to less effect?
 

SECTOR: PUBLIC - A New Site About Technology For Public Good

Last week, during the Mashable / 92Y / UN Foundation "Social Good Summit" in New York, I launched a new website called SECTOR: PUBLIC.  The focus of this blog is on leading the conversation about innovative social change via technology’s influence on the public sector, public service, and public good.
 

Right now, three entities contributing to the public good – citizens, the public sector, and private businesses – are incredibly dependent on each other. Citizens need support from government and the broader public sector, and jobs from businesses.  The public sector needs the support of the private sector through products and services, and needs input, ideas, and other contributions from its citizens.  And private sector organizations increasingly seek to stand for something more than merely selling products – they seek to help the public sector and contribute to citizens’ well-being.

SECTOR: PUBLIC lives where these three entities meet.  If necessity is the mother of invention, there has been no period in our lifetimes during which technological innovation is able to have such a great impact on civic progress.  Every day at SECTOR: PUBLIC, we will discuss cutting-edge technology, share public sector stories, and provide thought leadership about how American progress and public good are being both disrupted and benefited by the rapid innovation era we are living through.

Check out a well-received initial post about "Open Government Entrepreneurship" and read our "Geek 2 Chic" interview with the innovative CEO of iStrategyLabs, Peter Corbett.
 
I hope that many of you find my new website about public sector and public service stories involving technology useful and interesting!
 
You can subscribe to SECTOR: PUBLIC by email or RSS, and follow the Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/sectorpublic.  Learn more about our goals for the site in this Federal News Radio interview.
 

In-line annotation on a personal blog as the new "correction" for the subject of a hit piece

Fast Company just ran an article about advertising guru Alex Bogusky called, "Alex Bogusky Tells All: He Left the World's Hottest Agency to Find His Soul."  He disagreed with some parts of it, and had comments to make on others.  Why lobby for a correction, or get into a tiff with the writer?  Just annotate it yourself.
 
And he did, on his personal blog, in two parts (Part 1, Part 2). Not only is it really interesting to read in-line comments from the subject of the original piece, his annotations are garneringon some level more interest than the original article - just the first part of his material has way more comments than the Fast Company piece.  The art of the personal.
 
Perhaps this is a good reason for famous people to have blogs.  Real blogs.  Not just Twitter feeds, and not fancy websites for retail stuff.  Blogs.  Now when someone writes about you, you can tell your side of the story, immediately, in your voice, and also host a discussion about the discussion.  In fact, pulling the discussion away from the publication that got it wrong to your own personal media property.  Innovative stuff.
 

Cured Meat: It's What's For Breakfast

Pastrami_benedict

What's the deal with cured meat? It only seems to be available after dark. All these lovely plates of salumi and other delicacies, served with mustard and wine and tiny cornichons... But why can't I get any for breakfast?  When I travel it's always the same hotel room service for breakfast - bacon, sausage, and ham.  And not even fancy versions of these.  How about scambling me up some eggs with some of those delicacies you're saving for your evening customers? Sadly, I have to check out by 11am.
 
Well, I took this up with Chef Richard at Charlie Palmer in the very lovely Joule Hotel (Starwood Hotels) in Dallas, TX.  He cures the meats himself and takes great pride in it.  And they're good - I ate a whole plate. But why can't I have more tomorrow morning before I leave, I asked.  Chef Richard was inspired by our conversation - and did himself proud with a special Pastrami Benedict with savory corncake and red pepper hollandaise sauce.  Delicious (see photo, next to my copy of Dallas Modern Luxury magazine).
 
A couple lessons here.
 
One, business travelers often consider breakfast the most important meal of the day while traveling. Basic hotel chains have figured this out, offering free buffet breakfast with a room or different variations on that theme. But frankly, a lot of high end hotels have fairly boring breakfasts. Think about adding cured meats to the in room breakfast dining repertoire!
 
Two, this is just great customer service. Chef Richard didn't have to do this; he could have just had a nice conversation and went about his way that night. But instead he was back the next morning writing a personal note to send up with my food. This is the kind of thing travelers remember when visiting a big city with many "good" hotels to choose from. I know where I'm staying - and eating - next time I'm in Dallas: Charlie Palmer and The Joule Hotel.

Best Of: Fake Wikileaks Leaks

Last night I tweeted some fake Wikileaks leaks. Here's a summary:
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak bad advice during a Public Service Announcement.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the truth behind Santa in a special "Children's Edition."
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the end of the infamous "Man from Nantucket" riddle.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak tomorrow's soup du jour.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the Salahi's "off the grid" FourSquare check-ins.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak slowly, drop by drop, on your forehead while you sleep.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak real-time whereabouts of former SNL cast members.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak the results of the Nightingale School student body president election.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak after patiently waiting in line during the seventh-inning stretch.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak detailed Gym, Tanning, Laundry regimen of the Jersey Shore cast.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak every Twitter direct message.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak those night vision pictures you took last night.
 
BREAKING: Wikileaks to leak BP's oil into the Gulf of Mexico.