The recent Loblaws lawsuit against Wayne Lord, the man driving the bus involved in a horrific crash that tragically killed his wife and seven of his basketball players two years ago was quickly dropped by Loblaws after a social media backlash started to steamroll across the Internet.
Most of the analysis of this incident and other similar issues have focused on how PR companies and corporations will need to prepare and react to the new lightning fast reality of social media. However, I think there is something more interesting happening here. Incidents like this where social media is facilitating instant "value judgement feedback" may be the start of something more meaningful for our society: a more humane corporation.

Publically traded corporations like Loblaws for the most part are focused on optimizing shareholder value. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It is an important and, in many ways, an actual legal requirement to protect the public investor. But as a sole objective in combination with a corporation’s legal structure it has sometimes resulted in companies, while being staffed by sound ethical human beings to behave in clearly inhumane manners.

Corporations staffed with ethical people have opened third world sweatshops with brutal working conditions, covered up serious dangers in the products they sell, and have engaged in serious environmental damage with free flow toxic pollution. Activities that individuals would not “OK” on their own or in their own lives, are being “OKed” by those same individuals within a corporate environment. Why is this happening? My guess, is for the same reason Loblaws initially sued Mr. Lord.

An individual at Loblaws likely received the police and insurance report regarding the accident citing Mr. Lord as responsible. Understanding that Loblaws was out-of-pocket to the tune of $41,500, and that the standard procedure was to recoup that money when possible, the individual “OKed” the lawsuit.

Why was this "OKed", when almost any individual aware of the circumstances would have likely made the choice to not pursue a lawsuit? Probably because people's roles within a corporation generally do not permit them to make these decisions as individuals. They OKed the lawsuit because, "that is what the company does.” The company recovers recoupable losses – end of story. Understanding the trauma that Mr. Lord and the community has already endured, and the relatively small sum of money involved likely did not come into the decision making process.

It’s easy to criticize the decision by this Loblaws individual (or the company), but who really makes the moral or ethical decisions for a company as events occur on a daily and hourly basis? Who has authority to write off $40,000 and under what circumstances? Corporate policies alone cannot provide adequate guidance for all situations. If it could, computer programs rather than people would be managers.

The social media “backlash” clearly illustrated to Loblaws that the community was very unhappy with its decision. Loblaws in turn responded to the community, by retracting the lawsuit and apologizing. In the eyes of the community it did the right thing – the moral and ethical choice.

It would seem to me that social media has just made a major corporation more, human.

Build Community!

If you are a Web developer, online start-up, media company, anyone doing business on the Web, you've heard those words before. In fact you likely heard them Today, and chances are you will hear them Tomorrow.

As a developer of social networks and social media tools for brands, we sometimes have gotten trapped into thinking that social media tools should strictly focus members on the brand's content and message. It's true that successful communities require a level of common interest among their members, and that the purpose of the community generally revolves around the content and subject matter. However, I for one cannot talk about any subject for even 30 minutes everyday of the week. I must be able to break away from the common interest to discuss other things I care about, like ME.

The truth of the matter is that no matter how interesting or cutting edge your brand or content is, it will never be as interesting as the people inside the community over any extended period of time. So features for an online community need to be focused on bringing people together and then letting them go their own way. Do this right and your community will still be around and receptive to your message and content.

You can read the whole post here:A healthy online community is like an art opening

I just got asked a common question of budding entrepreneurs looking to begin a Web start-up.

"I have this idea, and I've been thinking about working on a start-up. What do you think?"

The quick answer is, "I don't know."
"But here is something that I wish I had followed":

1. Ignore people who don't get your idea right away. The fact is - even you might not "get it" at the start either. Probably a lot of "gut" feeling in your idea at the moment.
2. Focus on getting the quickest nastiest prototype out quickly. Don't over design it. Think days/weeks - not months.
3. See if people like your prototype, and "get it" once they see it and use it.
4. If they get it "clean it up - just a bit" so that you can give it out to more people - the target audience. Make sure that these testers, are not just people you know. You want unbiased opinion and experience.
5. Do people get it? Are people using it? Do people want it to do more (not different) things? (If yes for 2/3 then keep at it, else back to the drawing board.) You should have clear evidence that reinforces your "gut" that you are on to something special.

I am not certain that these 5 steps are appropriate for EVERY Web start-up, but I believe that whatever you do, your first goal should be to figure out if your idea is worth pursuing at all. Do this before you invest too much of your time and money, and especially before you ask anyone else to spend their time and money on your idea.

Considering population growth. The advent of 2+ TVs inside homes, 100s of channels, it is not surprising that TV Overall Audience is up.

However, Ars Technica reports:

This situation led to an unintentionally amusing audience question at a New York conference last week on the future of television. An audience member was confused about how viewership could be up but ad revenue could be significantly reduced; top network execs patiently explained that just having eyeballs wasn't much good in a major economic downturn. If advertisers don't have the budget to buy, it doesn't matter if your network reaches two billion people a night. (The lesson could also be applied to any web startup concentrating only on eyeballs, as though users automatically equal revenue.)

arstechnica.com

Ummmm... did a "TOP" TV executive really say "that just having eyeballs wasn't much good in a major economic downturn." Please, if this logic comes from "top executives" no wonder media companies are struggling. The fact is MORE TV programming is being watched, but LESS people are watching YOUR show. Its been like this for a bloody decade! The present economic downturn has little to do with it.

The top TV program today would never have cracked the top 30 in the 1980s or much of the 90s.

The trick is not waiting for the "economy to improve'. The market has changed we need to learn how to capture MORE money from a SMALLER audience.