I sent this internal note to a bunch of folks at AOL earlier today... sort of an update on the state of Netscape and what we've learned about the 1, 19, and 80%. After thinking about it for 27 seconds I realized that this is the kind of stuff I used to post to my blog and i figured I would share with y'all.
I have to keep reminding myself that the best feedback we got at Weblogs, Inc. was when we talked about our company publicly on my blog. When you get to a big company you tend to be more closed because people smack you down just because your big. I've been getting smacked down since I've gotten to AOL as a "sellout" or "big company guy," but I'm not going to let that change how I run my businesses. I beleive in transparency and the fact that the more you put out there the more you get back.
Sure, some folks will spin what I say as "AOL senior exec says BLAH BLAH BLAH," but frankly that's a small price to pay for gaining the trust of the community and the good advice they give you when you open up to them.
best j
Team AOL,
For those of you not watching the drama unfold in the social news space for the past couple of days, there has a been a big shift in people's thinking about us paying the top social bookmarkers for the 1-3 hours a day they put into sites like digg, delicious, and Netscape. Two months ago we were "destroying the space" by paying the top 1% of the user base, now we're considered the savvy ones who recognized that there is a real difference between the 1%, 19%, and 80% of the user populations (creatives, contributors, and consumers).
At its most basic what we've learned is that the top 1% of these community members deserve to get compensated for their time, and if you do compensate them they will be 1,000% more active and appreciative. Paying them isn't about the money as much as it is the recognition, and they are so psyched to be recognized that they will really go overboard in thanking you with very high-quality work. The Netscape Navigators are doing a phenomenal job of not only putting in good stories, but also of building a community. They talk to the users via site mail and explain to them how to participate. They let them know when they've made a mistake and how to fix it. They are mentors and leaders in the best sense of those words.
The 1% brings in the 19%, and that 20% bring in the masses/consumption class (the 80%).
Of course, Netscape was an established brand when we converted it. So, we had the the consuming masses (the 80%) and we hired the 1% (the creatives). What we're really working on right now is training and inspiring the middle class: the 19% we call the contributors. The folks who vote, comment, add friends, and send messages on the site. These folks are the most active portion of the masses and they are new to the social news process in many cases. We have about 1/3rd of those folks trained and we should build out our "middle-class" by the end of the year from what I can see.
I suspect this process will be the case for many of AOL's (and Yahoo's) user-driven projects. You'll have the masses by default, but not the creative and contributing classes. Those are the two you'll have to build.
So, I'm wondering if the folks on AIM pages or Uncut are seeing something similar and if similar strategies might work. Maybe Uncut should hire the top 20 video producers on YouTube to work for us? Maybe AIM Pages should hire the top 20 folks on MySpace to be part of our "leadership program" (or something like that). Have them train the user base and give feedback to the developers.
Some folks claim it's desperate to have to pay the 1%. That's pure *spin* by people who don't want to pay other people for their hard work. These folks are the life-blood of these systems and paying them isn't desperate--it's smart. Also, paying them does not stop other folks from want to get involved from getting involved. The folks being paid have obligations they have to meet, and the other 99% can come and go as they please.
The 1% are not getting paid for exactly the same things as the 99%--which was Yochi Benkler's big complaint about our Navigator program (he said it made the other 99% of folks into suckers). It turns out that the public understands that the Navigators have more to do than an average user (i.e. killing spam, getting rid of duplicate stories, helping users), and that they are obligated to show up for "work" every day. That last part sets the difference--the 1% we pay are obligated and the 99% are not obligated.
Anyway, just some thoughts for a Sunday.
best j
ps - here is the latest story giving us credit... i knew the tide would turn.
ps2 - votes and stories submitted broke records every 2-3 days over the last two weeks--and Netscape's web pages are growing again. Mission *almost* accomplished. (the mission for me is to double Netscape's traffic from the bottom out weeks of late August/ early September (when we lost the email users).
Netscape Update (the internal memo)
Recent Posts
- New of the Day - August 27 2008 (8/27/2008)
- News of the day - August 26 2008 (8/26/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)2. Jason, transperancy is a HUGE mark of a winning organization. Most companies are so big for their britches that they wouldn't know how to be transperant and communicate if Six Sigma smacked them upside the head. They call in experts and can't figure out why everyone hates them. It's because they don't listen. Thanks for continuing to push the right way to run an organization, you're fostering growth by starting it at the top and letting it trickle down.
This evolution of the social landscape will be interesting to watch, as it has been already. Netscape is a rising star in my mind, and I am excited to see what it becomes in the coming years.
Thanks, keep it coming!
Posted at 1:53PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Ryan Carter
3. Thanks for remembering that transparency is what helps to make community building a successful undertaking. I'm amazed at the clarity you continue to drink from, even as the signal to noise ratio around you decreases, you're still able to pull out the discrete sliver of truth.
Posted at 2:33PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Grant Robertson
4. filed under -inspiration-
Posted at 3:54PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Thomas Marban
6. This type of paying users for activity happens way more than people admit or know - trust me - we see it from the inside : )
Posted at 11:41PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Michael Jones
7. That's all well and good, but where is my old address book and the files I stored for later reference
Miles Wesner
Posted at 9:07AM on Sep 11th 2006 by Miles Wesner
8. I must be one of the 80% of whom the 1% and 19% are unaware. This new email is bad and I cannot find a way to respond to the system (THEY). This article is helpful in that it explains the thinking behind the changes. Amen to Miles.
Posted at 9:49AM on Sep 11th 2006 by Jewell Green
9. I have two problems with the new, improved Netscape. One is that many of the linked sites and articles are partly unreadable because you cannot read the lefthand part of the page, and the other is that I cannot get into my Netscape mail because it apparently can't be found by NT. (I can go to my daughter's and borrow her computer, but this is flakey.)
Posted at 4:04PM on Sep 11th 2006 by Linden Malki
10. After reading this memo is has become transparent that this guy is simply another corporate profiteer who does not understand nor care about the democratic ethics that have been essential in fostering the expanding presence of Web 2.0. The mere fact that this corporate elitist believes that Web 2.0 communities need a van guard that engineers the culture of the public space is in clear contradistinction to the ideological impetus that contributes the emergence of a Web 2.0 community. What attracts people to Web 2.0 is the egalitarian quality where everybody possesses the opportunity to equally structure the community; a possibility that only depends upon the rhetorical skill and inspiration of the individual who seeks to make an impact. To predefine who comes to dominant the culture of a Web 2.0 community is tantamount to burning the village in order to save it. Democracy is not something that calls for the elites' protection by overseeing in some capacity the decision making of the populace in order to make sure their decisions are the correct ones. Such an order is not democracy at all, and this Netscape contrivance is not Web 2.0/
R Cole
Posted at 9:11PM on Sep 11th 2006 by Russell Cole
11. On July 13, Netscape.com announced 20,000 user registrations. Today, 63 days later Netscape.com stands at 55,755 registered users. Average = 567 user registrations per day -- seems awfully low (!) for a website that was the default homepage of a browser with millions and millions of users. Plus, when you look at the traffic pattern, you did 20,000 registrations in two weeks and then it took almost two months to double that number. Seems to indicate a drastic decline in participation levels as time ticks on. On a chart, that looks like the edge of a cliff.
Can you let us know what percentage of the overall daily Netscape.com traffic does this daily subscription rate (576 users/day) represent? 1%, 19%, or 80%?
Posted at 5:51PM on Sep 13th 2006 by Net Jim
12. Thanks for the feedback Jim. We are adding over 1,000 people a day... which is a great pace for a site like this.
Now, not everyone understands the benifit of commenting and voting--let alone adding stories. You have to remember that "normal" folks (as in folks that are not part of the web 2.0 bubble) have never heard of this concept before.
This is the first time anyone has asked them to particiapte in their news process. It's gonna take a long, long, time for the social news portal concept to be understood by a mass audience. It will take 2-3 years at least... just like blogging did, and a lot of folks still really don't know what a blog is. They know it's a website and they know some blogs, but they may not know the true nature of blogging. That might take 5-10 years, just like folks are just now understanding the true nature of search, email, and IM--the first wave of "at scale" Internet applications.
So, give it time... and look at how the number of votes and comments keep going up. Some stories have 700 comments and 20 votes--that's because folks understand comments over voting. More evidence that we have a waaaaay to go.
Anything worth doing takes time... delicious and digg have taken years and they are focused on tech people.
13. If you are adding 1000 members a day since July 13, wouldn't you have 83,000 members today (63 days later)? You had 20,000 registered users on July 13 and I see only 55,755 today according to your new user tracker. I might need a math refresher, but I'm not seeing how you're coming up with your number. I see your average daily signup at being almost half of the number you just stated.
I'm also curious to know what percent of the overall daily users of Netscape.com the average 567 new user signups (per day) represents?
By all appearances, the number of new registrations have fallen off dramatically since the initial two week burst.
Posted at 7:38PM on Sep 13th 2006 by Net Jim
16. Thanks for your post. You are right with rewarding users that seemingly create the quality of the service. And when you look at Kevin Rose's comparison to democracy lets just have a look how democracy really works today. In an anecdotal way - You have some countries like Switzerland that have preserved the basic democratic principles as Kevin describes them. But do you think in N.Y. everybody could just be summoned up on Time Sq. and asked to vote by raising their hands (that's how you still vote in some cantons in CH)
So if you combine this with IT you are quickly getting from 1 user - 1 vote to 1 computer - 1000 votes.
How far this has already gone can be seen with the brief comment I put up on Mike Arrington's site regarding "Spike the Vote"(copy below):
----------
Seemingly this is as a few commenter have pointed out going on quite some time but now its becoming completely obvious and you can watch it live (see below).
We have today pointed to a situation at Digg that a story nobody can access is "spammed" to the front page. If things like that happen this means that actual "users" have long been marginalized and have no influence at Digg anymore.
And the issue is less with those who advertise their services like "Spike the Vote" that IMHO riding out a wave as it looks. Maybe we are already closer to the end of "recommendation" services or like basic democracy they follow special rules if the country gets bigger then let's say Switzerland. - Or more euphemistically maybe we are already at a point with web sites as big as Digg doing recommendation services they can hardly stay up with their weaponry to fight the spammers.
Besides this 2 questions:
1. How can you recommend a story that you have never seen?
2. What does Digg do about it?
No 1: Well if you follow the model that Digg is passing around as their current "selling point" you can't
No 2: Digg acted swiftly. It has removed our story showing that (currently) 600 Digg users have dugg a story they have never seen.
The story nobody has seen is still going strong...
The web site as well as cache or mirrors still show nothing when trying to access it.
The info is at: http://www.duvet-dayz.com/archives/2006/11/06/126/
The story in question is:
http://digg.com/design/The_History_of_Windows_in_Screen_shots
P.S.: Digg informed us they removed our post because it was buried from different IP addresses - well is that not part of all the gamers approach and not only the one from "Spike the Vote".
Digg did not explain why our story was the only one on gaming Digg so far ever been buried. It was going very strong and was digged by others immediately. Seemingly we must have hit a very weak spot of them here...
Posted at 8:01AM on Nov 7th 2006 by screenwalker
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. I've been following this craziness pretty closely. I'm not really sure why, but I think it's because it's massively important. Not just for me and my blog, though the action I've received from Digg and Netscape is wonderful. But also, kinda, for human history.
It's a new kind of news we're dealing with. There used to be the people writing the stories (associated press), the people choosing which stories to publish (editors) and the people reading the stories (audience).
Now there's a new group of people, the people deciding whether what the editors say is worth reading or not. The immediate feedback is amazing.
The most fascinating thing, I think, is that the editors are (were) largely unrecognized. These 'top-users' are of course not the only ones that submit news, but they have an amazing amount of power. I did some quick calcs and it turns out that around 66 million page views have been generated by the top two users at Digg alone. These are the people who control what hits a huge number of eyeballs, and no one knows who they are. They do it in their spare time, they do it for free, and they're massively powerful.
Of course, they don't necessarily do it for free anymore. But I don't think payment would be necessary and, frankly, I'd rather have access to Digg's colossal eyeball bank than Netscape's smaller (but growing) bunch of eyes.
But you're right Jason, it's about having recognition. People see the names at the top of the list and think "wow," but they don't send the top-users emails saying "thanks for your hard work," their work is largely ignored.
And then, in the last few days, some of Digg's user base came out and, instead of thanking them, collectively gave them the finger. And Digg did very little to discourage this. Now the top users, instead of feeling unappreciated, are feeling antagonized. It wasn't so much the new algorithm that did this, but the negative comments from the 19%.
They still hold the same power, really, the algorithm hasn't even changed yet. And even when it does they will still be the top users. But Digg did not come out and say "The top users are not gaming Digg," which they should have because the top users are NOT gaming Digg. But that was not the perception. And the minority revolt was a ridiculous consequence that may have lost Digg it's last few top users that Netscape hasn't lured away already.
Only time will tell, of course, but we may be watching the innovators dilemma unfold right now and, Jason, you're doing a fine job of being ready to take over.
Me, I hope both sites just continue growing and social news as a phenomenon becomes a norm. I love it, I'm happy to be a tiny tiny part of it.
Thanks for the transparency Jason, it's hugely appreciated.
Posted at 1:02PM on Sep 10th 2006 by Hank