Minimize Contagion & Impact of "Non-Credible" News? An Open Source Idea for a Pragmatic yet Audacious Project To Support Democracy

Executive Summary: News and journalistic organizations believe that "non-credible" news will invariably seek to impact key democratic processes like elections across democratic societies going forward. Case in point: France. Some approaches have already been implemented by Facebook, Google and news organizations. Can a digital approach (project?) become part of democratic institutions that support a democratic society? 

Yes! Below is one approach to protect democratic processes digitally- implementable in many ways, open sourced, free to use as necessary in your part of the world. Details of this approach have been continually fleshed, augmented and shared since late 2016. From the desk of no-substitute-for-transparent-democratic-institutions-and-journalistic-standards-but-there-are-still-gaps.

Why Now?

Some would argue that fake news has always been part of elections. Even the U.S. founding fathers engaged in leveraged untruths.

What's different now?

The hypotheses that are our baseline assumptions:

• Fake news by existing stakeholders in a society did not have the contagion powers it has today. 
• Foreign powers, and parties influenced by foreign operators in any democratic society, can now frequently and easily access asymmetric information contagion tools and their associated effects at a level previously unavailable as societies were not as interconnected digitally. 
• Separately, democratic institutions across the world have been undermined, which has a multiplier effect on asymmetrical power that a non-credible information contagion can wield.

So, We Have A Problem? Houston, We Have a Problem!

Yes, voila, some information to support the contention that we have a problem:

• A story by the Independent on the possible deluge of fake new stories in France: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-voters-deluge-fake-news-stories-facebook-twitter-russian-influence-days-before-election-a7696506.html
• An ABC story on tech driven fake news possibly influencing the US election: http://abc7.com/politics/russia-used-tech-fake-news-to-influence-us-election-expert-tells-senate-committee/1826410/
• A Vice news story about a "fake new machine" targeting the French elections: https://news.vice.com/story/russias-fake-news-machine-is-now-targeting-the-french-election
• An Oxford study on fake news and the French election reported by the Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/21/15381422/france-fake-news-election-russia-oxford-study

What Has Been Done So Far?

Some solutions have been put in place. there has been an improved focus on fact checking. The press and also social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook have taken the actions toward being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

• Facebook and Google have already implemented tools and processes to delegitimize non-credible news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/04/25/google-overhauls-search-algorithm-bid-fight-fake-news/
• Facebook and Google are partnering with news organizations: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-facebook-idUSKBN15L0QU
• Journalism organizations are taking action too: http://researchguides.journalism.cuny.edu/factchecking_verification_fakenews

The problem is not easily solvable though:

http://fortune.com/2017/03/29/facebook-google-fake-news/


Is Digital Action Needed, and Enough?

No. Digital action is no substitute for democratic and journalistic institutions, even if they have been undermined by internal social, economic and political forces. Are these institutions active, responsive and keeping pace with the digital change flooding society?

The true ring fences for any democratic society:
1. The Executive- Federal and State
2. The Legislature- Federal and State
3. The  Judiciary- - Federal and State
4. Strong and Free Press
5. Engaged and Skeptical Citizens

If nothing else, the media, upon self-reflection, would agree that #4 has been severely compromised. They've been impacted by the same digital forces that have become risks to democratic processes- there was even a movie about this; more from a previous post here:
http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/07/news-new-york-times-and-movie-about.html

This is not solved just by funding journalistic and media institutions (reference here to great journalistic institutions like the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Economist, Financial Times and others) that, as individual organizations, would have challenges with *fully* and *comprehensive* representing any richly diverse (viewpoints or other) democracy, regardless of their adherence to journalistic standards and to a mission that supports society's "growth".

I can attest to listening to the personal (and harrowing) story of an editor of a Philly newspaper who moved on to managing content for a small pharma company. A story told over lunch. Neither of us were really having lunch and I suspect neither of us had appetite for lunch after. Here is more food for thought:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/how-americas-coastal-cities-left-the-heartland-behind/478296/

Even if we doubt that these ring fences are no different that they used to be two hundred years ago, they are uniquely threatened by the digital nature of a more complex society today. Even with strong local and state institutions a strong local press, and locally active and organized citizens, a digital forum that allows these institutions to weave together, be aware of and respond to digital threats from non-credible information may now be a critical need.

This leads us to a need for a separate digital forum that sheds light on "non-credible" information that impacts citizens and democratic processes and allows them to react.

The assertion, in conclusion: No, what has been done so far is not enough. Yes, more, on many fronts, especially digital, is needed.

Succinctly: We are at "necessary, not sufficient". We would be remiss to not pursue a digital framework.

What Can A Society Do Digitally?

Below is a digital approach that supports the creation of another ring fence to augment those that have already been acknowledged as core for democratic societies for a long time.

The focus is to foster transparency on non-credible information available to people in a society, and to foster channels, forums, tools and pathways for democratic institutions and people to swiftly counteract the effects of non-credible information on the democracy.

A Project to Support Democracy and Transparency Digitally

Why Open Source?

• It's an idea.
• A functioning democracy requires a panoply of processes, institutions and approaches. This is one. 
• It can be implemented in many ways. 
• The focus is on post facto management of response to "non-credible" news contagion- this is a non trivial problem.
• It requires strong partnerships across companies and existing democratic institutions. 
• It requires vision and long term support and action. 
• As an engaged human being on this planet, I will be glad to support anyone who can run with this.
• Even if it fails, this is an experiment we would be remiss to not try. 
• Feel free to contact me for more information.

Note: This approach has been shared previously (early 2017) in various forums and individually with folks and startups seeking to solve this problem. This approach follows a clear path from questions about transparency with democratic institutions and processes that gripped a nation's consciousness in late 2016, and has been continually fleshed and augmented with more public information updates since late 2016. Separately, I am glad to see the press and social media and digital behemoths like Google and Facebook take the actions they have. They are being effective corporate citizens in ways that also strengthens their business.

Android Platform: Jellybean, Kit-Kat... what next?

Executive Summary: From the Desk of If-You-Get-The-Name-Right-The-Rest-Will-Follow.

There might be a trend here: Icecream Sandwitch, Jellybean, Kit-Kat... Latkes? Would you like it with apple sauce or sugar?

(Yes, it is the season for some savory Latkes too.)

What do you think?

 

Innovation, Risk-taking, Incentives, and Trust

What tools can most organizations, which exist in the spectrum between the Fox and the Hedgehog, leverage to build success through trust *and* risk-taking?

Executive Summary: How does an organization balance the pressures of building trust through, and incentivizing, sustained successful execution, with the need for some form of risk-taking (with positive outcomes). Are common control structures like bonuses enough? Does innovation have a role to play here? From the desk of They-May-Be-Buzzwords-But-You-Still-Have-To-Make-Hard-Decisions-About-Them.

Overview
Anyone involved with a business- from a startup to a Fortune 10 company- has dealt with the trade-offs involved in building trust across decision makers in the organization, managing levels of risk-taking (high, or low, as required), and structuring organizational incentives. In the middle of all this is the need for transparency, which is fulfilled via measurements and reporting as an accounting function.

The key here is is risk-taking for positive outcomes. This could be an imperative in hypercompetitive markets (Ref. Clayton Christiansen in Innovator's Dilemma). Examples of risk-takers for positive outcomes include Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs.

What approaches can help us manage these parameters? Does innovation have a role to play?

Kicking off the Thought Process and the Initial Hypothesis
An Accounting researcher***, who I happened to have the pleasure of listening to recently, tackled the topic of business trust and the role of accounting, in which two things stood out:
1. A "laboratory experiment" seemed to indicate that record keeping, as a function of measurement in accounting, helped build trust across multiple transactions between anonymous parties,
2. Bonuses- as a function of incentives, which in turn are a function of organizational control- are better tools than penalties for trust within an organization.

This led me to think about the relationship between trust and risk-taking, and specifically this relationship:
Trust > Bonus Incentives > Risk-Taking

The hypothesis is that bonuses, as a means of control, are not great for some types of risk-taking.

Paradigms from Strategy and from Psychology
The "mom" readers of this post would point out the abundance of literature around child development and types of positive reinforcement. Case in point, this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/raising-successful-children.html?pagewanted=all

Some strategic thinking readers might also frame this as a Fox vs. Hedgehog problem. Their point could be that organization must clearly choose between being a fox and being a hedgehog. If If you want your organization to focus on repeatable execution, then bonuses work well under the hedgehog paradigm.

In reality, most organizations have to do a balancing act between the two. So, how do you solve this problem for most organizations?

Some Pathways Towards Resolution
Here are a couple of thoughts:
1. Personnel:
Jack Welch has stated previously that, at GE, he looked for folks who had some failure under their belt. I take that as a proxy for an appetite of risk taking and an understanding of its potential consequences.
2. Innovation Program:
If bonus incentives are not helping with an organizational desire for risk-taking, then the positive reinforcement incentives need a more refined structuring. Innovation programs fill this gap for a more refined structuring.

Innovation
Several approaches to innovation are available to help make the appropriate trade-offs in the spectrum between the Fox and the Hedgehog. These focus on making innovation flexible and adaptable, and are available commercially, as well as in research literature.

However, structuring an innovation program in an organization is never easy, especially when it pertains to the core activity of a business unit, or even an organization. Enabling risk-taking though innovation requires a level of communication and buy-in across the organization that may take some time and sustained effort to achieve.

Do innovation programs at Google, Yahoo, and Amazon have interesting tales to tell? I have also previously posted about Netflix on this front:
1> Netflix bids for Original Programming: http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/03/innovation-and-tactics-series-netflix.html
2> Netflix and Organizational Capabilities: http://insightplusideas.blogspot.com/2011/03/netflix-and-organizational-capabilities.html

How would these contrast against innovation at a bank, at a perishable goods supplier and at a metals company?

Would an organizational skeptic call the innovation program old wine in a new bottle? Or is it all about results, and a rose by any other name is still a rose? Amazon has invested in risks for positive outcomes despite negative signals from the stock markets. Jeff Bezos had apparently asked potential CFOs if they had invented anything.

What do you think?


*** Many thanks to Dr. Kristy Towry at Emory.

Smartphones, Hypercompetition and Integrated Marketing Communication

Executive Summary: You are a second ranked player in a hypercompetitive market. You learn, from an independent research house, that your customers are more likely to buy your products than your competitors customers are likely to repurchase theirs. What do you do? Do you utilize this in your marketing communication? From the Desk of A-Kick-in-the-Shins-Does-Not-Always-Save-Nine. :-)

The Statistics

While looking at statistics toward structuring a perspective on industry trends, I came across an interesting study on customer loyalty for smartphones, where, even though the iPhone outperformed Android phones in NPS (Net Promoter Score- a Bain methodology) metrics, (marginally) more Android users are likely to buy a similar device, compared to the number of iPhone users' likely to repurchase an iPhone.

 

Waiddaminute? Did you read that right?

 

The Communication Opportunity

 

Given the hypercompetitive smartphone market, you would think the Android marketer has hit the jackpot. You can imagine Google Android folks rushing to their agency with a new brief to launch the next multichannel campaign (broadcast, web, etc.) in no time.

 

You can even imagine a few briefs ("Android users keep coming back for more") and a few advertisements:
1. Android user sees a store sign, "New Android Phone" and buys one, while iPhone users are shown getting their grip right for the iPhone, or,
2. Android user gets another Android phone as a birthday or a Valentine's Day gift, "I always wanted another Android", or,
3. Voice over wraps up with "Even when independent researchers praise the iPhone, they can't help but admit that more Android users are likely to buy another Android phone, than there are iPhone users willing to buy another iPhone."

... and many more!

Some Structure and Strategic Thought

 

The standard approach may be pretty simple in the abstract: Corporate Strategy -> Market Strategy -> Communications Strategy -> Portfolio of Communications Tactics. However, things aren't as straightforward in the "real world", are they?

If you were an Android marketer who finds this statistic, you would consider a few things, not necessarily in a top down, structured manner:

 

1. Source and quality of information:
Is the source and quality of information firmly in your corner? Well, you'll take a firmly independent corner too, wouldn't you? It’s more than just checking if your competitor can throw a more effective/ damaging response with the same source of information.

 

2. Timeframe: Does this lead to a "multi-period game" over advertising where you do not win, or you have no first mover advantage, or both parties end up in an expensive stalemate with a negative outcome for you? Coke vs. Pepsi advertising is an example. Also, think about Pepsi stepping back from Superbowl advertising in 2010.

 

3. Communication Themes: What is Android's driving theme for the season or for the year? What is Android's multi-year communication and branding strategy? Does this drop in the ocean create ripples that turn in tsunamis, or should this drop be assimilated quietly using different tactics?

 

4. Portfolio of Tactics: Does the Android team have a portfolio of tactics aligned with its communication and branding strategy? Does the portfolio explicitly accept or reject this opportunity?

Digging into the Details
Let’s dig into a couple of the items listed above.

Timeframe:

Lets take one question- Do you think there are season spanning advantages to pushing the message? Here are some hypothetical situations that elaborate upon this. Say, it's the holiday season, and Android launches the campaign based on this research. Does Android have time to make an impact on sales? Does Apple have time to respond right away and nullify the advantage? Can Apple hit back harder around the same theme at the next key sales period?

The Source and Quality of Information:

The study, using the Net Promoter Score methodology, declares that the iPhone outperforms others in user loyalty:

http://www.zokem.com/2011/01/in-the-us-market-iphone-outperforms-other-mobile-platforms-in-user-loyalty-by-a-wide-margin-android-is-second-blackberry-fourth/

Given the number of iPhone users that have stuck through a lot of thin (network, antenna, cracked case, etc.) this should not be surprising. However, as you scroll past the Net Promoter Score based results of Mobile Platform Loyalty Ranking graph, and down to Repurchase Behavior graph, you would note an interesting result.

89% of Google Android customers would buy a similar device in the future. Compare this to 85% of iPhone customers being willing to by an iPhone in the future.

Huh?

Now, there are various perspectives to this:

1. The iPhone has set very high expectations and is doing a fantastic job keeping its user engaged.
2. Android targets a different customer segment than the iPhone and phone’s pricing could be a factor. (Perhaps not for long-http://www.pcworld.com/article/219712/cheaper_iphones_why_apple_might_risk_its_brand_identity.html)
3. Also, iPhone’s AT&T exclusivity (for this study period) could be a factor in Android's stats.

We can come up with a few more as we think through this. However, what do you think?

Music Industry, Technology, IP and Piracy: Is there anything in common? Really?

Multiplicity of Approaches.

News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml

The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.

My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.

Allocate resources toward making money.

As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.

So What? How does this apply?

While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.

Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?