So the other day I'm watching the new Dunkin' Donuts commercial... have you seen this?  CEO sits down next to the lacky and suddenly the old guy is sporting some Snoop Dawg style cornrows.  He's also got a cup of the new vanilla spice flavor coffee.

"Whatcha got there, sir?"

"Oh, vanilla spice."

"That's kind of a change for you, no, sir?"

"Well, I just woke up today and thought I'd try a little something new."

Its hilarious.  I nearly fell off my chair the first time I saw it.

Then, it got me thinking about the following problem:

A lot of people have trying to become Flickr for video.  The ones I've used are Castpost and Vimeo.

The Flickr model is that its free up until a certain bandwidth, and then you pay for more access.  Flickr is a really great service and I don't know what their revs or expenses were, but it just seemed like that could only get so big.  I think the NPV of the values Flickr could actually generate on its own was probably less than its combinatoral value (whatever law that is) as yet another thing one could do on Yahoo! if they could integrate it into the network properly.

Video presents a similar issue... one that's worse.  Video requires that much more bandwith and  is a smaller market with less valuable metadata.  The market will always be smaller in terms of videos created versus pictures taken because

"...intimacy is a space that exists between people, and once you enter it...  from once place (from physical to emotional or vice versa) it makes it easier and more natural to get to the other parts of the space."

Brad calls it the "narrow point of the wedge."

Umair calls it "microchunking."

Whatever you call it, lately, I've been fascinated with the idea that the key to leveraging committees that oversee larger consituentsies is in trying to create more "small things" that everyone in the community can do.  We might understand this in technology, but a lot of professional organizations, school clubs, academic departments, student service offices like the career office, haven't gotten this yet.  They struggle to delegate and create leaders because they don't actually have the small tasks that fuel community participation and self-organization.

Currently, I sit on two committees.  I'm the co-Chair of the Fordham Young Alumni Comittee and I'm also the Chair of the NYSSA SEMI Committee which is a college mentoring program.

Both groups mirror each other.  They have small groups of people loosely tasked with organizing and programming for a much larger set of people.

In each situation, we have the same issue.  The work of the group tends to fall into two categories.  Either we meet on it, or one person goes and does most of the work on their own.  Neither model scales at all in the context of the larger organization. 

There are two problems.  The leader definitely doesn't scale.  That's an obvious one.

Boards don't scale either.  The leader can only push so much to the board, and even if the board members do great work, they're still only a small group of people getting a limited amount of things done, especially if they're volunteers doing this in their off hours.    If you put 5 people in charge of 500, then all they'll ever be able to do is speaker and seminar them to death.  The nature of your programming will reflect the nature of your organizational approach.

Both of my committees have the same problem.  We want to get more people involved, but we can't reasonably expand the size of the committee.  There's not enough to do in a committee meeting as it is.  It only takes on person to invite a speaker. 

Its obvious you want to push down more resposibility and delegate, but the problem is that you don't actually have any tasks to delegate to anyone.  If "show up to an event" or "show up to a meeting" are the smallest tasks you can assign to someone, you'll never be able to create interesting community dynamics.  Have you ever wanted to delegate but didn't actually have anything small enough to hand to someone?

That's where microchunking comes in.  Make the tasks smaller and more distributed.  Instead of running your group with 6 members who each contribute 2 hours a week, what can you give 24 people to do that takes them a 1/2 hour?

We've done this to some extent with the alumni group and the career planning office.  Whereas it used to fall on the 7 or so staff members of career planning to despense all of the career education, we created a program that allows 50-100 alumni to partipate as mentors.  That actually gives an answer to the alumni that come back to us and say, "I want to get involved... what can I do?"  We didn't really have that before.

Similarly, we're doing baby steps like this with the SEMI program is well.  Previously, all you could do was either mentor (which was limited to 25 people), which was usually reserved for more experienced professionals, or sit on the board.  Yet, I have all these alumni coming back to me saying, "I want to help."  Now, we're letting companies sponsor some breakfasts for the students, and we're going to have alumni run some small group discussions as well.  Its not a lot, but its more to do and the important part is, these events are going to be self-organizing.  The volunteers will put the events together.  Little/no incremental effort on the part of the board.

Knowledge sharing is a big area that allows for microchunking in big groups that also requires little maintaince by the small group that runs things.  There are people that don't want to/can't mentor or run small groups, but might be able to put 15 minutes into answering questions, or contributing these answers in a blog post.  Technology has to be a factor here.  Wikis are a little less mainstream at the moment, but they'll get there and are a great way to get the community to share knowledge.  Sometimes, an active website that allows community contribution can bring a lot of people together in small chunks of interaction, making the group as a whole thrive.

I'd love to hear from people that are involved in professional organization management, alumni programs, etc to see how you get participation out of the long tail of your community.

BTW... just for kicks, here's the promotional video I did for SEMI on our blog, which we started this year and has been a big success.

Su Doku, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

People are upsessed with this game here...

PPC-6700, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Win mobile 5, Wifi, bluetooth...



Outlook right on my phone.



bye bye Treo



Needed this for work reasons.

Shamu-burger, anyone?, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Yummy...

Link: ESPN.com - MLB - Marines No. 1: Valentine's team wins Japan Series.

Bobby Valentine became the first foreign manager to win the Japan Series when his Chiba Lotte Marines completed a four-game sweep of the Hanshin Tigers with a 3-2 victory Wednesday.

45th and Lex, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

I used to meet a friend on this corner after work... Never went to the Sbarros though.

Check out the comments on our USV blog...

I took these videos at Sessions...    Castpost has had some server issues over the last week, but I'm happy to link to them here anyway.

We've got the Intro, Bruce Spector talking about how some of the big names in the web space got started as social endeavors, Dick Costolo talking about user contributions, Yochai Benkler, Umair from Bubble Generation, Jeff Jarvis and Tim O'Reilly.

I've gotten some negative feedback about my eHub post, which I made a few edits to.

Just wanted to make a few things clear:

1. I don't speak for  my firm on my personal blog, especially now that we have our own.  Keeping with that, I took out the paragraph about how my rant relates to the way we do business.  Should be more careful about that.
2. The only thing I said personally about Emily was, "Emily Chang is a slick designer and an even savvier businesswoman."   I believe that, and last time I checked, that's a compliment.
3. Basically, what I was trying to say was that its really easy to look at this resource like its an "auto-fill for a deal log", which it isn't.   I was trying to comment on how there are so many little web tools out there that its a lot to keep up with.
4. I never said eHub was a bad tools resource.  Its a great tools resource in fact.
5. Anyone who reads my blog regularly (which I'm not sure that my critics do) knows I can have an abrasive and sometimes obnoxious style, and sometimes I use that to emphasize a point.

So, I apoligize if I offended anyone.  That was not my intention.

You're all welcome to unsubscribe from my blog, of course, and to rant about my obnoxious behavior when you do.  In fact, I'd be happy to link to it.  :)

Of course, I say that in jest.  I hope you don't unsubscribe, but I encourage anti-Charlie ranting.  I love feedback, of any kind.

Perhaps karma got me back with the ankle injury.  "What goes around..."

Sandy goes to the hospital, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Zog softball boo boo.

Sometimes, when you act a bit crazy, it sollicits an interesting response from people:

"I think the web-based features that are appearing all over the place will be the home pages of this new era -- many will be abandoned by their developers and left to die a slow death once the developers realize that they don't have many long-term users. And others will be cultivated and slowly grow into businesses. In that respect, I think Ning is the new GeoCities."  - Scott Moody

I remember watching that stock guru/nutcase Jim Cramer announce that he was "off Fedwatch"  a few years ago.

People were so overfocused on trying to figure out what the Fed was going to do that they stopped paying attention to some very basic attributes of the companies they were trying to invest in. 

So this morning, I was going through my feeds and checking out the latest Web 2.0 tools and innovations on Emily Chang's eHub.  You know eHub... 

Its a "...constantly updated list of web applications, services, resources, blogs or sites with a focus on next generation web (web 2.0), social software, blogging, Ajax, Ruby on Rails, location mapping, open source, folksonomy, design and digital media sharing..."   

...and Mesothelioma.

Ok, maybe not... but it might as well. 

"Web 2.0" is the hottest discussion topic in tech right now, and if there ever was a site that was striking while the iron was hot, this is it.   I'll bet you every single tech VC that has figured out how to use RSS (many probably still haven't, which is fine) is subscribed...   mostly in paranoid fear that they might miss "the next big thing".

But I looked at it today, like I did everyday, and yet again, I couldn't find anything that not only solved a problem for me, but solved a problem for thousands or millions of people in a way that anyone who didn't know what Ruby, RSS, or open source was would adopt.  Correction:  I found a lot of neat tools.... some great tools.   I didn't find a lot of businesses and I've been looking at it like I should be, which isn't what its for.

Well, I'm tired of it. 

I'm tired of signing up for calandering and todo applications. 

And "Fuck you, I have enough friends!"

I'm also tired of knowing through the Crime stats/Pedometer/Blogmap mashup how close the blogger nearest to me needs to walk to get mugged.

That's not a useful service nor is it a business.... in the same way that blogging isn't supposed to go be bookworthy.  (Well, except maybe Tom's thing... but that's a whole other story.)

eHub itself is a great example.  Emily Chang is a slick designer and an even savvier businesswoman.  She's latched on to a hot topic with a resource that plays into exactly what the crowds are clamoring for, and her business is going to take off because of it.  But, she's not evaluating or discerning...  Addition:  ...   and that's fine, but I think a lot of the Web 2.0 naysayers are looking at collections like this and acting like this represents a list of what Web 2.0 has to show for its best business ideas.

Think of it this way.  If all of these little tools bought Google keywords that said, "Discover the greatest ajax apps right here", would you click on it?  No, you probably wouldn't take it seriously.   So, if eHub isn't doing any screening, then what's the difference? 

eHub is promotion, not scripture. 

With a lot of blogging, there's a huge amount of content now available created by people who aren't in the business of creating content.  They're trying to promote some other service, or are simply promoting their industry in general.  Some of them even actively engage in discussions meant to lead to best practices, enlightenment, etc. 

In the same way, there are now thousands of little lightweight web services out there created by people who aren't in the business of building businesses.  They are programmers experimenting in their free time.  Maybe they're trying to promote their services.  Maybe they just needed to solve a problem that only they had, without much concern as to whether or not anyone esle had it.  These apps serve a lot of different purposes for a lot of different people, but that doesn't make them all businesses.  Bubbles happen when we don't see the difference and we start funding (and overfunding) the projects.

And the line is certainly blurry, don't get me wrong.  The difference between now and ten years ago is that what someone can build today, on their own, for free, is a million times better than the "real" applications people were building back then.  Plus, they come to market faster with a greater buzz.  A lot of them seem very real.  But some of them are just pixel copycats.

EDIT:  So, I'm done deluding myself that I could just relay on resource lists like this as an easy way to find the beginnings of great businesses.  eHub is a great resource for tools, but not an auto-fill for a deal log.

I'm off eHubwatch!!

[16:25] lightbox5: believe me, there are no end of things you will go to the mattresses on
[16:25] lightbox5: clothes will, in the end, not be one of them
[16:25] Ceo21: See.. that's the problem
[16:26] Ceo21: at the end of the day
[16:26] Ceo21: I want to go to the mattress...
[16:26] Ceo21: literally
[16:26] lightbox5: right
[16:26] lightbox5: so wear the shirt

Talk about transparancy...

Now you get to watch all our little domestic issues play out in real time, because Adrianna is blogging.

She wrote this because we have this issue about her trying to buy clothes for me.  I'm sure there are a lot of cavemen in my court.  I just don't really care too much about clothing.  I just want to be comfortable.  I hate the idea of buying brand for brand's sake or following what's "in".  She says she just thinks I'd look better in certain things. 

"I'm just a caveman.  Your world of pastels and flat front pants frightens and confuses me."

In the meantime, she helped me with some of the apartment stuff and will continue to do so... so its not like I'm totally closed minded, right?  Anyone agree?

Should I let her dress me for success or draw a line in the sand that my no-style style is personal and shouldn't be messed with?

This is where me and the guys are today, along with a whole bunch of other smart people.

A certain someone has convinced me that I need some more outside input into my fashion choices... perhaps a bit more flexibility.

She made a convincing argument.

So, I'm opening up the selection process to all of you, starting with my winter coat.  I will buy and wear a winter coat solely selected by my blog audience.

Here's the deal:

1. To submit a coat for group voting, tag it in del.icio.us with the "coatidol" tag.  (No quotes, obviously.)  Only coats tagged in del.icio.us qualify, so if you want to be a part of this, learn how to use del.icio.us by clicking here.
2. Submissions will end in one week on Tuesday, October 25th at 5PM.
3. At that point, we will do a two day vote ending on Thursday, October 27th at 5PM.  Every coat and its picture will be displayed for voting and voting will be anonymous.
4. No coat over $350 will be considered.
5. Remember, this is a winter coat...  so ideally it would keep me warm.
6. You're free to select any colors, but I think its obvious what colors I like.  (See my living room, my car, my blog)
7. The community will police itself.  Tagged coats will appear at del.icio.us/tag/coatidol as soon as people start tagging.  If you see a coat that's an obvious attempt at getting me to wear something stupid, just tag it coatidolsucks.  No coat tagged coatidolsucks by anyone will be considered.

Oh, I forgot to mention...  whoever tags the winning coat gets lunch on me. 

The first coat has been tagged by the dark side:

Link: del.icio.us/tag/coatidol.

Years ago, Adobe came up with a brilliant business model for PDF documents that more services should be taking advantage of today:

"The reader is free, but you pay to format the file if you're a publisher."

We're spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to aggregate, join, standardize, etc., but no one is just working on coming out with a really good "reader", particularly on the social networking side.

All of the social networks out there are branded and closed, yet their does exist a syntax for social networking called FOAF.  Can you imagine if every single place you got a PDF from gave you a new reader?  But that's what's going on in the social networking space.  LinkedIn, Friendster, etc. should allow you to "publish" your groups by adding/inviting users, adding data, pictures, etc...   but when it comes time to "reading", they should allow you to publish to an open standard.  That's what would tie in all the people who don't want to be on them, and I think the best place for a "reader" is in your e-mail.   

The social networks are going to have to learn at some point that they need to open up to truly create value.  This is especially the case for groups.  Institutions like Fordham, NYSSA, would pay gladly pay to "publish" the group functionality if there was a universally accepted reader.  So, someway, you've got to be able to read your connections universally, and add them to other networks.  So, Fordham could publish my alumni connections, NYSSA could publish its database, and I could just catch and connect them all with a freely distributed viewer.  Maybe I'll use the Friendster viewer, or the LinkedIn viewer... as long as they all read, who cares?  Those services could still do all the advertising they need, compete on "extra services", etc. but on top of infinately more valuable interoperable networks of people.

What would this all look like?  Not sure, but right now, the social networks are treating everyone like a publisher, connecting to each other without context, and trying to figure out how to monetize everyone--yet not making access universal.  They've got it all backwards.  The entities to reach I'm relevently connected to, like my school, should be given better tools to connect to their constituenties in an open, universally readable way.  RSS feeds should publish something similar...   creating "socially open feeds" (reading lists) that can connect you to the people you share subscriptions with.

So next steps?  Get the networks to publish their FOAF (if it does what I think it does) and someone should develop a really slick Ajaxed out FOAF reader that you can combine, remix, and add networks, too.