We saw awe-inspiring work, a renewal of the creative passion that helped launch the Internet and its period of technical, entrepreneurial and societal achievement. Old-school publishers such as Popular Science, Zagat and Thomson Reuters rediscovered their game with sharp-shooting apps aimed at connected audiences. NPR and ESPN enhanced experiences that were already compelling online. There were untethered virtuosos, too, such as Electric Literature, the Ghost in the Machine (under development) collaboration, and soloist Rob Kelley’s BeatPad. We’ll revisit and follow the development of their apps in subsequent posts, examining the qualities that make them successful.

More critically, we saw, heard and felt a renewal of the creative passion that helped launch the Internet, the Web and its culture-bending technical, entrepreneurial and societal achievements. In just four weeks since the launch of Apple’s iPad, a flurry of applications has been released to expand engagement, enhance understanding and extend meaning and utility.

Design-driven innovation from a fresh, creative class of developers has delivered a whole new mind for experiencing a world gone digital — high concept, high touch connections that enable us to cope with our unrelenting craving for transcendence.

Finally, we have devices and a number of very good starts that deliver abundance with an aesthetic imperative, as well as a new and better way of organizing things: the new order or order.

Yet, initial responses to our questions were cautious and meek: It is early. We don’t really know. Where’s the money?

Where’s the money?
As a way out of ingenuity, the last response is the first one cited. “Where’s the money?” is the mantra of the unimaginative. A circular question, it is an excuse for inertia, a business plan for standing still. Again. The question is almost as pathetic as its cousin — the position that we won’t invest in an online or mobile strategy until we are certain it works. Good luck with that one.

We weren’t surprised that some who participated in Tabula Rasa, and some who covered it, could not or would not get their minds around the theme of the event: innovation in the emerging Conceptual Age. Mea culpa, we invited discussion at a where’s-the-money session called Good Apple, Bad Apple / Good Business, Bad Business. Given both the dissension over “paid models” and the noisy discourse surrounding it, the topic is a requirement on the conference circuit. Not even a fresh take could take us out of the weeds.

We thought our friend Merrill Brown, the former Editor-In-Chief of MSNBC who’s been dealing with the issue for a coupla decades and currently promotes a freemium model for publishers (some content free, some paid), summed it up rather well: “Putting up a pay wall does not solve your business problem,” said Brown. “Publishers who think they can put their magazine on an iPad and make a lot of money are making a significant mistake.”

We love surprises … almost as much as provocation. Jeff Jarvis didn’t disappoint. We showed the stunning TIME magazine app — high concept, high touch, and only $4.99 issue. The Buzzmachine turned buzz killer:

“I think the TIME Magazine app is the most sinful piece of shit ever,” said a skeptical Jarvis., “The ego of it was unabashedly awful.” On his blog he writes: “It’s worse than the web: we can’t comment; we can’t remix; we can’t click out; we can’t link in, and they think this is worth $4.99 a week. But the pictures are pretty.”

Josh Quittner, TIME’s editor-at-large and one of the creative forces behind its iPad app, gave it back to Jarvis in a blog post called “And the horse you rode in on.”

“Jarvis, a former Time Inc.-er, can be forgiven for the disgruntled, I-hate-my-ex-wife tone that creeps into his rhetoric, whenever he discusses his former employer. It’s tiresome, dude, and intellectually dishonest given that you’re still stumping for your Google book.” 

Turns out the dispute was not about the money, but a little about the distribution of media bundles, a little about concerns that Apple and its partners are attempting to control the “open” web and kill the link econony (Google), and more than a little about Jarvis and Quittner.

Can we turn the page, please?

The Meaning Model
Enough cautious and meek. We need some bold. Why not look at economic issues with the same creativity and integrity as we do conceptual ones? The current “where’s the money” debate is framed by rules developed for the economies and societies, factories and mass production, of the Industrial Age. Forward-thinking enterprises adapted to the atomization and proliferation of content in the Information Age. Now we enter the Conceptual Age with a universe of creators. The new currency is meaning. Off the top, how many business plans can you conceive for a meaning model? Maybe a hundred for, say, anyone?

From Tabula Rasa, we put that first word on the blank slate: meaning. As we reconsider what it means to be human, we’re discovering new metaphors for storytelling, creating new ways to engage, connecting with a world of friends and information, and designing innovations that will guide our lives and shape our universe on almost any device.

Where’s the money?

We’ll answer the question with a better one: Where’s the love, y’all? We put that one to music (Black-Eyed Peas with Justin Timberlake) and video when we started we this crusade back in ought-three. If you don’t know the answer to “Where’s the Love?” by now, you’ll never get the one that asks “where’s the money.”

This is one of those moments – an important shift in digital culture that will be old news, obvious to everyone, a few years from now. There’s an electrifying crackle in the air as digital creatives, businesses, investors and visionaries collide in a mad dash to define the future around the next big thing. Not even the old masters of the universe can stop it. Their hands are slipping off the controls.

There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I may lead them.

Sorry. Your people are leading the way in this universe.

Journey to the Conceptual Age
It’s not just the iPad, it’s the promise of a more personal, more creative, more fulfilling, more inspiring and more beautiful digital experience. It’s the promise of something more human, more wonderful. It’s bigger than Facebook or Twitter or Apple. It’s the next PC, the next smartphone, the next printing press. It’s all of that – in a simple, mobile shiny-new-thing powered by something entirely new to media: human touch. Gigs and hard drives fade into the cloud, replaced by pictures and words and shapes and sounds we can mold like clay. That’s magic. The result isn’t merely something hard and shiny that resembles a notepad. It’s something old, deep and rare: pure joy.

Over the next weeks we’ll continue our journey to the Conceptual Age. We’ll stop at the guideposts along the way, showcasing innovative examples of work defining the creative moment. We’ll conduct activities that show where the moment is leading. And we’ll identify the qualities of design-driven innovation that will determine who flourishes and who flounders.

To get started, we have five questions ….

“>

I am excited to announce the launch of a new project that we are calling WeThink.

What is it? WeThink is a conversation about innovation and the future — an effort to explore new ideas and promote solutions to the challenges that our society is facing.

What’s the big deal? If you follow our work here at all, you’ll know that We Media is a movement – a concept – that helps explain how we know what we know, who we trust, and how we learn. It’s about power of the community. We Media is part of the infinite quest to harness the power of media, communication and human ingenuity for common good. And, well, We Media changes everything.  We Media changes the way we innovate.  We Media changes how we create, sustain, and grow successful ventures. We Media enhances the structures, models and economies that support human communication, interaction and achievement.  And through that, We Media challenges us to review our existing ways of operating, break apart our established structures, and re-build our approach to the future.  These changes impact all of us, and they are forcing each of us to find new ways of thinking about… well, everything.

What are you talking about? I have this crazy idea that we need to re-think the way we create, support, and sustain ventures.  We need to re-think how we innovate.  What we are doing isn’t working anymore – not as well as it should – and we need to try something different.  That means re-considering what kinds of companies and organizations are needed today, in response to the massive changes we are seeing in our society as a result of the influence that technology and the internet are having on our culture.  That means re-structuring how ventures, both for-profit and social in nature, are funded and managed.  That means re-assessing what success looks like for new companies and organizations, as well as re-considering how we measure progress of existing organizations against our needs in society.  And that means re-building the whole infrastructure of innovation… from how we teach it, promote it, cover it in the media, what skills we value, who gets to serve as gatekeepers, and more.

How will it work? Over the next year we will collect and share new ideas, highlight different approaches, ask tough questions, and propose solutions. We will lead a new and different kind of discussion about innovation. Everywhere we go we will be looking for new issues to discuss and new ideas to consider.  Everyone we talk to or encounter is invited to contribute their experience or perspective to help power this effort.  And all those ideas and suggestions, approaches and solutions will be shared.  They’ll be posted online.  They’ll be open to feedback.  They’ll be mashed up with other thoughts.  At the end of a year, our plan is to pull together a ‘solutions book’ that helps to support, and sustain, a vibrant and game-changing discussion going forward.  The rest we will figure out as we go.

The first few ideas and questions will be posted in the next several days.  So, stay tuned — the fun is just beginning.

My favorite comes from The Madison Avenue Journal, a newsletter/blog for “industry leaders who are interested in understanding how contemporary culture intersects with Madison Avenue.”

To improve understanding, Mad Ave. gave Gutenberg an apocryphal story, establishing a new standard for ridiculous and wrong in just five sentences. If marketers write history, the iPad will no doubt take the idea that lit a fuse on a literacy revolution to a new level. And we’ll be able to tweet Joey G’s 42-line bible in 140 characters.

An editor’s take:

“>

Today’s podcast features a conversation with Chris McChesney, one of the lead researchers at the Franklin Covey company and the author of The 4 Disciplines of Execution: The Secret to Getting Things Done, On Time, With Excellence. Chris and I connected after I issued by ‘Business Book Challenge‘ — suggesting that I was having trouble finding business books that offered value, or insight, to really help people and organizations to succeed. Chris’ expertise is in helping organizations develop effective strategies and execute them properly — and his research, and now the book, are focused on teaching the principles that guide those successful efforts. He thinks his book passes the test — but I am not so sure that a book, no matter what it talks about, can fully change the way people think and act.  I put that question directly to Chris — you’ll be surprised by his answer (about 35 minutes into the podcast).  Beyond the book, we talked about some of the challenges that plague organizations today and what role technology and the internet are playing in making those easier, or more difficult, to handle.  We also discussed how people learn and how to measure success across organizations.  Really interesting stuff.

Click below to listen.

Please post your comments, suggestions, or ideas for future conversations and podcasts. We’re listening!

Here is what I wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that most (maybe all) business and strategy books are useless. They over-generalize. They offer little value. I go in with such high expectations, based on reviews and descriptions, and am almost universally disappointed.

For a project that I am working on, I want to be find the business and strategy books that do help, that really deliver value.  I want to find the must reads.

I want books that offer guidance and support on how to start and run a effective businesses and organizations.  I’m looking for authors who really understand how to change people’s minds or understand their behavior.  I know there must be a book out there that can help me (and others) to be organized and efficient, creative, and successful. And of course, I want to find a book that offers really good advice on how to break through and make a difference/impact in today’s connected society.

I have been trying for years, with nothing to show for it.  So now, I am asking for help.

If you are an author, a publisher, or just a reader — you can help.  Read the full post and send me your suggestions.  C’mon WeMedia community, this seems right up your alley.

I will share everything that people send me and try, through my blogging and other outreach, to help others figure out what to read. So please, help me find the must reads.

Moderator: Sam Grogg, Dean, UM School of Communication.
Panelists:
Greg Linch, multi media reporter and senior journalism major at UM.
Sanjeev Chatterjee, professor of broadcasting and executive director of the Knight Center for International Media at UM.
Jody Brannon, National Director News 21, Arizona State University.
Krista Van Tassel, Net Impact
Mike Marshall, editor in chief, UPI
Rich Beckman, Knight Chair in visual journalism at UM

Millennials are web surfing holistic learners who seek digital connections practically 24-7. The boomers are us (me included); we were shaped by the politics of the Vietnam war and came of age professionally after the advent of computers and the world wide web. We are struggling to adapt to the digital revolution. Some of us just don’t get it.

What happens when student millennials and boomer teachers meet in the classroom? Major disconnect. As when a law professor prohibits students from bringing laptops to class, or a broadcast news teacher says she can teach news writing with a notebook and a Number 2 pencil.

Bridging this divide is all about learning from each other, teaching traditional skills while adapting to new technology and remaining open to changes in media.

The panelists are cautiously hopeful that all this is happening in the new now. Yes, students still read textbooks. They still show up to class and engage in classroom discussions. And they are using social media to learn in unforeseen ways like using personal class blogs and twitter discussions, creating content and using other technology to connect every which way.

Journalism professors too are moving beyond teaching from the text, augmenting their courses with chat rooms and discussion tools on Facebook and goggle and twitter. At UTEP where I teach journalism, my student interns file weekly reports on my web classroom site. That way I keep track of what they are working on and intercede if there’s a problem.

Here are some observations from the panel:

Chatterjee: “In this age… of instant media, the opportunity for truly collaborative teaching and learning has arrived. Teachers are now facilitators rather than holders or conveyers of knowledge. They can be a coach in the classroom.”

Linch: “There has to be middle ground” between traditional instruction and using social networking and new technology to teach. “I don’t see why technology would stand in the way. Age doesn’t determine proclivity to twitter.”

Brannon: Boomers should “not be fearful to jettison old practices,” like the inverted pyramid. “The new generation is thinking of storytelling as a tapestry, and more holistically.”

Beckman: “Now everyone is bringing laptops and classes communicate through Word Press. Students are creating documents on goggle doc. Students are commenting and class goes on 24 hours a day. That’s the reality of teaching and learning now. It’s a great learning environment once you learn to manage the tools and learn to apply them in specific subject areas.”

Grogg gave this personal example of the generational divide from a recent class when he asked his students to join a Facebook group for class discussions. “They gave me an odd look. I asked are you all on Facebook? They all raised their hands. What’s the big deal? They said ‘we didn’t know you were on Facebook.’ OK, let’s get past that.”

So how does the academy go about rewiring the teaching styles of technology deficient professors, many of them approaching retirement. Especially now that they are postponing retirement as the global financial crisis depletes their nest eggs. One way, Grogg suggests, is for universities to invest in faculty development, peer education and collaboration. But, he admits, “we won’t get everyone. And it’s going to take a while.

In the meantime, will the academy need to reinvent much as media has had to do in the face of web 2.0 and future iterations. One audience member suggests that within 20 years institutions of higher learning will begin to unravel as web connections and digital tools will make learning easier, faster and less expensive.

I’ll leave the last word on this to Dean Grogg, who says it will take more like 100 years for education to revolutionize and adapt to the changes in technology.

“We don’t know when tipping point is,” he said. “We learn differently now. We have different expectations. But there’s a lot of roots dug deep in institutions.”

Where do all these changes mean for the study of journalism?

Marshall: “Despite all the changes in media there still is something that is called effective story telling. Whether it’s a magazine feature or a video story the broad principles of storytelling remain.”

Three recent J school grads bemoan that they work for newspaper web sites where most of what they do is click buttons to paste news stories and photos on the site. This is their first job in the “new” news media. As “web producers,” they are antsy to get on with what they were trained to do at good J schools – gather news and information and package that into multimedia stories.

Where’s the “journalism” in what they do, they wonder? They look around the newsroom and it is top heavy with aging boomer reporters, many of whom are about to riffed or fired. Traditional photojournalists get the plum assignments for the web. And video is not that hot a priority for the newspaper companies they work for. On the off chance there is an opening for a newsroom reporter, chances are the opportunity will go to a seasoned “old style” journalist with lots of years of experience under his or her belt.

The slow pace of change in their newsrooms is exasperating even though they work for a daily “newspaper” they go to Twitter and Google for breaking news. They wonder what the newspaper of the future will look like. Definitely not a broadsheet. Maybe a magazine format with opinion and interpretative stories.

“I’ve been taught to multitask and I know how to do it all in a highly specialized format,” says Mathilde Piard, a recent grad of Columbia School for Journalism. She works as a “web producer” for the Palm Beach Post and spends most of her workday updating stories and making style changes to news stories for posting on the website.

“My true love is journalism,” says Piard. “I’m a little disappointed.”

Given the dire economy, though, Piard and University of Florida grads Mallory Colliflower and Bridget Carey, a web editor and tech reporter, respectively, for the Miami Herald web site, say they are happy to have jobs period. “I’m not complaining,” said Colliflower, who graduated in 2008.

Time is definitely on their side, as they wait for the newsies to make way for the websies.
In the meantime, patience is virtue.

More interesting than the list of results is how the search companies tabulate the rankings, and what it says about us.

For example, “Yahoo doesn’t reveal exactly how it calculates its rankings other than to say it analyzes the number of queries for a specific term and its increase in popularity. Generic search terms such as “car” are ignored, as are most company names.”

Why would you remove generic search terms?  Searching is searching, there is no need to massage the results.  If online users are looking up brands, that says a lot about how we choose which products to buy and use.  And there is no doubt we are using Yahoo! and other search engines to find basic information, like a phone number to our local pizza place.  We may not all be searching for the same simple piece of information, but by the same measure I believe (or maybe hope is a better term for it) that most of the population isn’t searching for information about Britney Speaks either.

The Ask.com, whose list is apparently unedited, lists the term “Dictionary” on the top of its list, and shows Google, Facebook as being of great interest to users as well.  Their results suggest, among other things, that finding the sites we use most is one of the most important things a search engine helps us to do.  They may not have the same PR value, but for people who want to understand what people are using the internet to do, it says a lot.

The fact that Yahoo! feels its necessary to adjust its rankings for PR purposes makes me wonder what they do with the actual results.  Do they manipulate the results to align with advertising listings?  Do the search engines promote certain information that supports their political agenda, or their personal interests?  Do the results that search engines provide reflect the full scope of information that is out there period?  Maybe its just a sad cry for attention.

Whatever the reason, the lists make for good cocktail party conversation, but little else as far as I am concerned.

With his blog, Charles keeps alive a valued tradition of visual explanation and perspective at a time when most newspapers are eliminating graphics and when television is doing them so badly (a recurring theme in this blog; keep watching).

Cleaner, yet still busy, the site changes to more horizontal navigation and provides access to Romenesko from all pages. It looks like Poynter has also added personalization tools. Online director Bill Mitchell describes the changes and tracks the process at the PoynterRevolution blog.

See the redesigned home page here.