Tim Malbon
- Status:
- Nickname: Tim Malbon
- Member since: 2009-07-30 08:39:42
- About me: Tim has been creating innovative online community stuff since 2000 and was recently named as one of Revolution Magazine's 'Future 50' - one of the the "marketers, authors, entrepreneurs, and thinkers who will shape the digital industry of tomorrow". It also called him "disruptive and challenging". Tim is a founding partner of Made by Many, Agilist, strategist, Dad and designer of social software.
Clay at The RSA... Yay!
He must have read your blog…
“I hope someone like Clay Shirky uses this as an example of the power of social media in a talk in the near future. I’d love for them to!”
July 1st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Clay at The RSA... Yay!
Cruise missiles are always good
July 1st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Made by Many's London Digital Event Calendar
Brilliant idea
July 1st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
In case of emergency: Kevin Kelly
Mike – that only just made me laugh just now…
June 30th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
In case of emergency: Kevin Kelly
Hi Naomi,
I haven’t but I want to.
If only I could get around to reading ;-)
But seriously, I saw him talk at SXSW this year and thought he was brilliant. He told everyone to stop using their laptops and mobiles for a few minutes and most people did. It was excellent. Then he played some very weird instruments. Very imposing and powerful talk.
I too agree that it changing the way that we behave. Definitely. But I don’t think it’s changing us genetically, or that we are on a new evolutionary track because of it. As far as I know there isn’t any evidence for that at all. I’d love it if we were evolving in this way I really would. But sadly…
Weird that both Kelly and this alarmist chap at the NYTimes want to believe that it is changing us at an evolutionary level, with Kelly embracing it with a kind of millenarian rapture and the NYTimes dude totally bricking it.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
In case of emergency: Kevin Kelly
Kevin Kelly has been shown – once again – to be a prescient genius. He should immediately be given the job of reforming English football. I think he’d be up for it and I’d love to see them getting spiritually violenced by The Technium
June 30th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Racking up the points...and the coins
I’m glad you’re being honest about your new obsession. It’s the first step on the road to recovery. I’ve been getting round the clock notifications from you and always know where you are – even at weekends and in the evenings. And you’re now the mayor of Made By Many.
Here’s another clone that took some stick this week: “Pepsi Loot is an exercise in futility”
http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/06/02/pepsis-own-foursquare-pepsi-loot-is-ridiculous/?awesm=tnw.to_16Hli&utm_medium=tnw.to-other&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_content=twitter-publisher-other
June 4th, 2010 at 10:25 am
My name is Tim Malbon, and I am a Soreen Addict
Listen, I scared myself. It took on a life of its own. @saulpims scared me too, and the others… I think the policy of “don’t do anything for at least” a year was probably a good one from a risk management pov
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
My name is Tim Malbon, and I am a Soreen Addict
Rick, you’re quite right. I wouldn’t trust me. And that’s why I cried real tears of joy when the hamper arrived. I felt a bit like a prodigal son, returning to the fold.
On a serious note, and I promise you there is one, it is an interesting problem for all brands. I have to take my hat off to Soreen for the way they’ve handled it. Some of our tweets were much more challenging than the ones we’ve ‘fessed up to here… like the time we started a rumour that there’d been a fire at one of their factories and there was a Soreen shortage.
Or the time we started using ‘drug-dealer’ language to describe the way a fictional Soreen ‘drug’ was distributed… Or the stuff about evil… Perhaps we shouldn’t talk about that stuff.
Thanks for your commenting and support with this one. It’s been really good fun.
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Will Technology Creation enter its own Age of Abundance?
I got the feeling that Stuart was kinda pretending that we might be moving to a commoditised Tech Creation world, or that he didn’t really expect this to happen for a long time… you know, in order to appear even-handed and reasonable.
Stuart?
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Will Technology Creation enter its own Age of Abundance?
Awesome post. I think you’ve nailed something really important, a crucial distinction between remixing and creating – and you nailed to the Age of Abundance. ‘Technology Creation’ is a great way to look at it.
Re: Pats’ comment – why is it that agencies find it so difficult to get the right kind of technologists? I suspect that it might be for deeply cultural reasons. Stuart, again I think think you nailed this – the reason might be that they don’t even realise that they are now in the business of Technology Creation. This parag is ‘the one’:
“The problem is that the industry will only become truly relevant again to an age of networks and technology when it can conceive and create whole new technology experiences. That is not to say that all traditional marketing/advertising activity will disappear. There will always be money to be made in advertising, just not as much money. The effect of content and media experiences on long-lasting, global technology culture is far less than the effect of technology innovation.”
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 am
"Sometimes you have to destroy something you love"
Thanks for commenting James. Love the point you make, and “Learn to do by doing. Agile applied to agencies” Great thought.
Although I think your comment could equally apply to the blog posted by my colleague Stuart here today as well.
http://madebymany.co.uk/will-technology-creation-enter-its-own-age-of-abundance-003825
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:30 am
Why is Facebook so hard to love?
I really loved Jared’s Collapse. Especially the bit about Iceland, which I hadn’t realised was totally forested when the Vikings moved in. Sadly, they used most of the wood up within a hundred years of getting there – which has led to the lunar appearance of Iceland’s landscapes.
It’s very tempting to believe that we have an in-built boredom-triggered mechanism, but I’m not quite there with you. People definitely act as a herd in terms of adoption and abandonment but I think they also make a value-judgement about whether they’re getting a better service here or there. Facebook doesn’t have any competitors right now, but when it does people will decide where they get the best service – including where they get treated best.
As several commentators have pointed out, Facebook seems to have a cultural flaw. This post from HBR was particularly good. I think that comes through – as you would expect – in the personality of the service, or lack of it.
Facebook is unlike the examples in Jared’s book, which are about resource depletion and ignorance. In this case it’s almost the opposite problem. However, Facebook’s behaviour is every bit a tragedy of the commons, just like Iceland and Easter Island (I almost wrote Eater Island, which would have been ironic as apparently it was the depletion of agricultural systems on Easter Island that led to cannibalism). In this case the service is trying to ‘enclose’ its users and their data.
I’m still on Facebook though – reluctantly, and only because I wouldn’t be able to keep in touch with friends who will never get onto Twitter if I leave.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Three fallacies of newspaper thinking (and how paywalls cracked at the Frontline Club)
I thought Gurtej was incredibly graceful considering how difficult it must have been to answer – or sometimes not to answer – the questions coming from all quarters. I think the whole room warmed to him despite being mostly in disagreement – which is quite a feat. Great post btw William.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
Why is Facebook so hard to love?
Hello again Mark,
Thanks for leaving a comment here. I am lucky I have only ever had positive experiences of getting in contact, however slight, with people. I don’t use FB much but I suppose I kind of hang on to it as a way to stay in contact friends who aren’t on Twitter – you know, real people rather than geeks and work folk. I rather wish they’d all just hurry up and get on Twitter but i’m also a realist and i know i’ll have to keep my FB account for that reason for the forseeable.
I think FB is pretty good really, and I have really enjoyed it as ‘the phenomenon’, the breakthrough social technology service. It was/is a huge pioneer in lots of ways. I just feel it would benefit from being less dull, especially when a competitor does emerge which is inevitable and, I would have thought, to be welcomed.
Other than the novelty value, I don’t go in for vampire spam and stuff like, but I know loads of people who do. I just don’t. I do still use it for finding out about events and reminding me of friends birthdays.
Twitter’s my service of choice. It’s fun and funny, and useful, I’ve both rediscovered old friends and made new ones. It’s where I keep up with what people are doing, where they are, what they’re reading or listening to or thinking. I’m glad you’ve taken the plunge – and thanks for your tweets this weekend!
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Why is Facebook so hard to love?
Peter, what DO you mean??
May 21st, 2010 at 1:27 am
Why is Facebook so hard to love?
Dang – you caught me red-handed!
Yes, it’s true I was selective – i probably-shouldn’t-but-couldn’t-resist using the old fashioned ‘face’ facebook one – but lo… is it *not* frightening and sinister?
Seriously, there wasn’t a lot to chose from with Facebook – at least Twitter has this excellent thing going with error screens. In a weird way it means that if Twitter was less flaky it may not have been able to establish its personality as successfully as it has. Turns out Twitter’s ‘404 spot’ is actually a bizarrely effective form of interruption-based brand engagement. FTW! they’re missing a trick with the OAuth page.
Hmm – the modal window… yes, I think it’s brutally efficient, and once again works better than Twitter… but I don’t particularly like it. It could be better. But yes it works well, and Facebook does work well generally. It’s bland but it works well.
I’ve never seen a Facebook 404 page – not that i can remember anyway (I am not a ‘heavy user’). I imagine it would be quite dull in comparison to Twitter’s though.
UPDATE: I just found an image of one. They are a bit dull.
http://dfbills.com/images/blog/facebook_error.jpg
Clearly, Facebook should immediately introduce a flakier service and some prettier 404 pages, in order to allow themselves to take Twitter head-on in The 404 Wars – as we shall come to speak of this golden time in years hence.
I dunno. It’s complicated. Maybe Facebook and I should to go to Relate.
I guess I think that the intangible brand stuff that Twitter seems to ooze – and Facebook doesn’t – the bits that allow you to bond to it, and love it… that seems really important. A bit of personality wouldn’t hurt – read the guide and help copy on the site, but not for too long or you’ll go mental.
I like the way Twitter seem quite relaxed about people doing all sorts of mad shit with their logo. And your page on Twitter really is your page – the way you want it without you having to think much.
One thing about this whole utility thing – I don’t like being made to feel like the stuff being squirted round someone’s pipes. A commodity. I like to feel like a partner or stakeholder. I really think the ‘if you don’t like it f*ck off’ approach is a disaster.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am
When I grow up I'd like to be more like a start-up
Hi Gerald
I’m not really saying the world currently revolves around Four-Square-esque applications. Even my world doesn’t… honest.
I’m not even saying “the future’s geo-social man”. I was using FourSquare as an example of a small team being able to achieve an incredible amount – in terms of software development and service design, from the ground-up, to sign up 1/2 a million users globally in the same 12 months and get commercial deals in place with a load of top brands – with many other brands no doubt currently beating down their doors. My point was that the kind of massively participatory, integrated (by which I mean ‘into the real world’ – through the mobile in this case) digital platform and service that FS are building is the kind of place that anyone with something to sell or say will want to play in. It won’t replace traditional marketing communications but I think it will mutate it into new forms that will be based around more dynamic value exchange with all stakeholders. Personal context and service (including emotional utility such as play, with the FS example) will be more important than in the past simply because they can be. It’s going to be exciting.
My point was that ad agencies are not currently set up to develop social software services like FourSquare. It’s heard to see how FS could have been created by anyone but a genuine, determined, invested start-up team. Sheer scale and complexity, and legacy corporate structures make it very difficult for any big established company to really ‘act like a start-up’. As William Charnock points out, there are quite a few examples of agencies trying it out in a labs or skunkworks type of environment – where scale and structure can be safely redefined. It would be really interesting to see how this develops – I wonder what it looks like when ad agencies become part-investors and part co-creators with the start-up punks, and bring their creative, cultural muscles to bear in a way that makes it all work even better. I hope someone tries that soon. We are hatching some plans to expand the ways in which we can work with start-ups and entrepreneurs.
As for Groundswell’s ‘Ladder’ – it’s a great model and very useful, but it was first developed three years ago (?) and it’s a ladder… people are climbing up it all the time – you put a ladder against a wall and people climb up it. And in the last three years, the neat delineations between Creators, Critics, Collectors, Joiners etc have blurred. It comes from a time when people had a photosharing site where they put photos, went to a video sharing site for video, and poked friends on a social networking service like Facebook. Now Facebook is ALL of those things.
I think the ‘average customer’ is much better prepared for the future than many governments, organisations, media owners and brands are, but not to be “addressed” with anything. They want to join in.
March 28th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
Hey Simon – thanks for this. I have been obsessed with the mystique angle for ages.. I think that’s right – and there are other companies that we really admire who totally nail the mystique bit. I’m thinking of Anomaly in particular – I like the way that they don’t attempt to unpack the whole gamut of what they do. Mystery is built into their name: the page at Anomaly.com simply defines the term:
“Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form or rule. Syn: Abnormality, deviation, exception, irregularity, rarity”
It says, “We’re different”, with the implicit understanding that this is a ‘good thing’. I’m sure this must help them find the right clients – it must help the wrong clients self-select themselves off (that sounds a bit weird but you know what I mean!). What makes ‘being different’ valuable to clients is then unpacked through the quotes on the “Why We Exist” page.
In other words, they appear to be having their cake and eating it. In style…
March 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
Another fab comment – thank you so much. And once again, I think you’re spot on – we’ll definitely have a bit of a think about how to frame benefits for potential clients. This whole exercise has been brilliant in terms of eliciting some advice and helping us to see this problem from a range of external perspectives…
The collective thinking cap is set to ‘on’…
March 4th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
Mario – thank you so much for such an interesting and well considered comment. Much appreciated.
The analogy with your frustrations at not being able – adequately, in your eyes – to sell your skills is a really interesting one. I particularly like what you say here:
“Not only that, but the sheer plurality of available, undefined problems and theories in the world means that restricting yourself to one bookshelf of the library will have you missing out on the full reach of your possible contribution.”
And I’m going to try out some definition of practice through the ‘future-lens’ right now!
It *is* impossible to be content with it. I know whatever we come up with I shall hate almost immediately.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
That’s unfortunate, because I’ve come round to the idea that we need one, super-simple, lowest common denominator line – AS WELL AS a long tail of other expressions. It’s Cindy’s fault.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
Thanks James,
We’ve always talked about trying to explain what we do through the work. It can be a very powerful way of explaining what you’re planning to do… but I do think we might need a line that gets people to the stage of even wanting to understand what we do.
Unfortunately, for me, ‘We solve brand communication challenges with technology.’ sounds too much like marketing, both literally and conceptually.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Trying to describe what we do. It's complicated.
Cindy – thanks for taking the time to write that. I was really hoping that by opening up some of these internal debates we would elicit some advice from someone like you.
I think you’re right. You’re *obviously* right. I was being a bit lazy. But why stop at one? I’m wondering if you benefit from having, say, twenty throwaway defaults rather than one? A mosaic rather than a portrait… I don’t know – I think we may need one really high level one (although it might have to pose questions as well as answering them), but we could fill that out with another twenty, sprinkled manifesto-like, elsewhere.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Objectified: giving objects memories
Wow – this is such an interesting post. I guess you must have read some of Bruce Sterling’s stuff on Spimes… all particualrly interesting because in some ways he’s the bridge between real technology advance and scifi/near future history. Have a look at this interesting post from Boing Boing.
http://boingboing.net/images/blobjects.htm
January 27th, 2010 at 12:20 pm