The thrust of Benkler’s “The Wealth of Networks” is how the wired world is changing the way in which society communicates and creates. Another influential book about the Internet era is “The Cluetrain Manifesto” which laid out a series of statements challenging business status quo amid this tech revolution. Among the points put forth in that book is that people don’t want to be marketed to anymore; instead, they want to be part of the conversation.

“Cluetrain” came to mind while listening David Hanley of Banyan Branch talk about the many methods his company uses to interact with the public on behalf of clients. While he covered many cutting edge techniques for doing such, a casual comment resonated with me: referring to one of his employees, he said that she spent her time selling benefits rather than building relationships.

This reflected once again that a shift is truly taking place within the walls of business, not merely being expressed within the pages of books. The fact is that we are tired of being treated as targets of a message; we see through the marketing and cheerleading both as consumers and employees. We want to be leveled with, not patronized. And online tools make finding the facts easier than ever. We don’t glance at an advertisement and buy the product or visit the restaurant. We research it, looking for reviews, and turning to those whose opinions we trust. As a result, the approach of engaging a community is gradually becoming a business norm, not just a corporate buzzword.

The discussion of Comcast’s prospective purchase of a majority share of NBC was timely. I’ve subsequently read Nicholas Carr’s article in The New York Times Magazine about the topic, and was impressed that many his insights were included in our conversation the other evening. He points out that television was initially thought to be the medium that would suffer least in the Internet era, due mainly to the size of watching video online. But as bandwidth has increased, tv is now scrambling like news and music have previously. And Carr agrees with us that net neutrality is crucial to ensuring that overzealous owners of “programming and plumbing” won’t use their power to control or infringe upon the information we seek to access.

The Internet is having a profound impact on society and culture. We are communicating in a more open and efficient manner thanks to this technology. And as a result we are on the precipice of revolutionizing the world’s economic and political systems.

This is the premise of Yochai Benkler’s classic and influential book, “The Wealth of Networks.” His tome, published in 2006, touts the emergence of a “networked information economy” that is shaping the way in which we create and share, and its far-reaching consequences.

Benkler explains that the world has moved to an economy based on the production of information (software, science, financial, services) and culture (music, writing, film). And it is our use of the Internet (which Benkler describes as a “communications environment built on cheap processors with high computation capabilities”) that allows us to produce information in an interconnected and decentralized manner.

These changes have fueled what Benkler describes as “commons-based peer production,” which features collaboration and creativity that is easily disseminated. Benkler claims this will replace the industrial production methods that dominated the 19th and 20th centuries. No longer will we rely upon monopolies to supply us information goods; instead we will do it ourselves. Printing presses, cable and satellite systems, and proprietary rights will give way to non-market social production, practiced and shared by millions worldwide via the power of the Internet.

Where all this is leading, Benkler posits, is toward making “the 21st century one that offers individuals greater autonomy, political communities greater democracy, and societies greater opportunities for cultural self-reflection and human connection.”

It’s quite an ambitious blueprint.

Certainly much of what Benkler writes rings true. The economic traits of information apply seamlessly to peer production, including low marginal costs, large-scale consumption, and widespread availability. Benkler is also correct about our transformation from an industrial economy that is centralized and mass-market-based to a networked version that is interconnected and distributed. This sea-change is threatening entrenched business models and corporations.

Media companies, in particular, are suffering. We no longer just consume media, but now we also create and share it, and that has caught the old-guard off-guard. For decades these companies relied upon wealth, political influence, consolidation, and copyright law to stave off competition and solidify profits. But these techniques aren’t as effective any more due to the sheer scale and democratizing power of the Internet.

Examples of how social production is altering the media landscape are in abundance: the CraigsList marketplace has obliterated newspaper classified advertising revenues; blogs have given everyone the opportunity to have a voice; cheap video cameras and platforms let everybody be a film-maker or talking head; and collaborative efforts have led to open-source software creation and a community-based encyclopedia.

Subsequently we’ve seen media companies buying up tech firms and products, supporting Benkler’s inference that monopolies will typically act in self-serving fashion rather than for the common good. As their business models are failing, newspaper giants such as Gannett, Hearst and others have purchased or invested in digital properties like E-Ink, Adify and CareerBuilder.com hoping to alter their dire prognosis.

Benkler champions an open marketplace that isn’t driven by monetary considerations, but he also acknowledges that the infrastructure can be costly. Social production may be free, but not the cables, switches, and microprocessors that are necessary to a networked economy.

For all of Benkler’s forceful and enlightening insights, though, his over-arching view is utopian. And herein lies a problem: idealism is admirable, but usually unattainable.

Benkler envisions a world where the masses come together and create for free in a new economy based on decentralization and distribution. In turn, he believes this will revolutionize the way business is conducted, how society communicates, and how government works. While some of this may seem plausible, societal and economic realities would seem to make the dream elusive.

Specifically, his assumptions about non-monetary rewards give pause. Benkler feels that community members will be guided by altruism. But it is ingrained in society that we will be paid for our work and expertise. I don’t see desire for money disappearing in a networked economy. That which we produce will eventually be driven by a profit motive.

Benkler contends that a decentralized approach to production will succeed outside a price system. However, this is more likely because the market has yet to fully evolve. YouTube, Facebook and other social production sites are wildly popular, but they are still desperately seeking ways to make money. Creators seem to be biding their time until monetization occurs.

Going further, amateur production will gradually lead to specialization and commercialization. Radio played this song before; it began as an amateur endeavor, but eventually gave way to a set of radio stations that could better serve a growing audience. Similarly in this era we’ve already seen bloggers create successful business ventures and networks.

Even in Benkler’s writings we see examples of monetary motivation. Among his strategies for the production of information, Benkler describes the Scholarly Lawyer who gives speeches or writes articles for free, but mainly to enhance reputation and thus opportunity for financial gain.

Another of Benkler’s claims, that production will proliferate without managerial structure, invites scrutiny, too. As entities grow, structure will necessarily become part of the equation. Look no farther than some of the darlings of social production: Wikipedia has implemented some hierarchy to improve its quality, and open-source software production utilizes a management framework. Autonomy may be a hallmark of social production, but there’s nothing wrong with being well organized.

At times Benkler’s overly pedantic prose can obscure his message. But his 515-page treatise nonetheless provides tremendous observation and analysis.

“The Wealth of Networks” is a groundbreaking book covering the repercussions of the Internet on society at large. While Benkler may overestimate the influence that social production will have in transforming the world, he still builds a convincing case by connecting current trends to larger ideals. In that regard, the book remains required reading for understanding the relevant issues of today’s networked economy.

Tuesdays discussions were very interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the gritty details of the West Seattle Blog, some of which I’ll surely reflect upon in a later post. But the theme of the evening was free as a business model, so I’m going to tie that into a few of my observations as they apply to online content.

Amid all the hue and cry about the demise of newspapers, the fact remains that they are still profitable for the most part. The problem was that they grew accustomed to large profit margins. When those margins got smaller the newspapers panicked because they’d made business decisions based on the inflated return, including purchasing other papers and real estate, two areas industries hit hard in the recession. And, of course, they had to answer to their investors on Wall Street. One of their answers, cutting staff and coverage, may have saved money but led to a worse product. If only they had learned to live with margins in the 5 to 10 percent range, which they are very capable of achieving, then they wouldn’t be pleading poverty. Barron’s online on Monday ran analysis saying that in reality, newspapers are doing just fine. And if newspaper management had been even a little bit agile in regard to digital media, they would have figured out ways to stem the losses to Craigslist and others.

The New Yorker doesn’t skimp on its content; it’s well-respected and award-winning. Online, though, it doesn’t offer access to every article. It lists all the content in the current issue, but some of the best articles don’t open when you click on them. The magazine can get away with this because of its sterling reputation; people can either buy a subscription to read the article, or wait until it becomes live online later. Many publications use this method, including Columbia Journalism Review, and it underscores the point that having compelling content needs to be central to any media approach.

It’s been said that the best things in life are free. Chris Anderson sings this tune in his book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” saying that not only is “free” great for consumers, but a necessity for business in the digital era.

As the editor of Wired magazine, Anderson has had a front-row seat for the technological revolution of the last couple decades. His 2006 book, “The Long Tail,” surmised that digital technology was toppling standard business convention. Specifically, because of high costs of marketing and distribution, brick and mortar companies have relied on selling massive quantities of a few hot products. But thanks to digital tools, these marginal costs are significantly lowered, allowing companies to sell smaller amounts of many different items and still make money.

“Free” is a continuation of Anderson’s general themes of “Long Tail”: the positive economic effects of digital technology on society and business. Here he argues that offering stuff for free is a savvy and inevitable move.

Anderson understands that his thesis runs counter to traditional economic theories. “It doesn’t take a PhD to understand why Free works so well online,” he writes. “You just have to ignore the first ten chapters or so of your economics textbook.” He seems to relish his role as a rabble-rouser, and heaps praise on successful practitioners of “free,” from Gillette to Google.

The economics of production have indeed been turned upside down by digital media. At the heart of this transformation is the sharply decreasing price of technology: processing power, storage and bandwidth. As a result, the marginal costs of copying, sharing and distributing are next to nothing.

Thus, he reasons, these low marginal costs, combined with the psychological appeal of a zero price point, make “free” a winning proposition. In turn, Anderson argues, businesses that learn to accept and maximize “free” are going to find success. The book goes on to lay out the ways this is being practiced, and cites cases where companies are using “free” as part of their business models.

So far advertising is the most prominent method of monetization. There’s a lot of free information on the Internet these days, content that attracts viewers with specific interests and needs. And advertisers are paying to reach these coveted audiences. Besides the standard display ads to which we’re accustomed, many creative approaches to online advertising have taken hold: pay-per-click text ads, affiliate ads, site sponsorships, paid listings in search results, and more. Google is the leader in translating its page views to cash; its services and products are offered gratis, and the money comes from advertising.

“Freemium” is another popular model, in which some content is free, but there are charges to access enhanced information and services. Several online publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Congressional Quarterly and Consumer Reports, and niche sports sites such as Rivals.com, are successful with this hybrid approach; free content generates interest, but if you want the really good stuff you’ll need to pay. Flickr and Craigslist give away services, but charge fees for what they deem premium services.

Anderson doesn’t limit himself to information products in explaining why Free is so dynamic. He points out that Zappo’s and Amazon use the power of free shipping to encourage purchases, and studies have shown it works.

What becomes obvious while reading the book, though, is that these common approaches to monetization aren’t really all that unique. Advertising revenue subsidizing free content has long been the strategy of publications, radio and network television; bring in as many people as possible, and charge high ad rates. Freemium, too, is merely a derivative of subscription publications and cable television. And using “free” as an enticement to buy a product is a time-worn strategy.

And while the book celebrates “free,” others curse it. In particular established media companies have struggled in the online era. They’ve offered their content for free, but the ad dollars haven’t proven to be particularly lucrative. Classified advertising, a cash cow for newspapers for decades, has become a skinny source of revenue as those dollars have fled to free online classifieds sites. Meanwhile, the one product you would think the media should be able to convert to cash, content, instead is being poached and monetized by Google and other aggregators. Media companies are actually failing, in part, because of their embrace of “free,” and the book doesn’t reconcile that conflict.

So as the book claims that there’s a lot of money to be made by charging nothing, this isn’t necessarily proving to be the case. And “Free,” while making its points, doesn’t really address where the money is going to come from over the long haul either. When it comes down to it, Facebook, YouTube and others mentioned in the book aren’t yet making a whole lot of money on their free offerings. Anderson concedes as much in the pages of “Free,” noting that while anybody can incorporate it, “typically only the number one company can get really rich with it.” Google is proving to be that exception, a company that is raking in big bucks in the era of free. But Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt is also quoted in the book, expressing concerns about the free model on the larger marketplace; free does work fine for his company, “and not well enough for everyone else.” That said, considering Google’s remarkable innovation and products, one might even question whether free is the reason Google is succeeding.

The book is at its best in providing historical context to “free,” and tying it gracefully to the present. And it does an excellent job explaining the basics of “free,” and demonstrating how prevalent it truly is today. However, unlike its cover claims, it doesn’t really examine the future of “free.” Free offerings may still be an interwoven element of our digital economy going forward; but without insight into its future I’m not convinced “free” will be the backbone Anderson believes.

Anderson, Chris.  Free:  The Future Price of a Radical Price.  New York:  Hyperion, 2009.

The economist Milton Friedman insisted that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” His feeling is that no matter the label, something “free” always costs the recipient in some manner. However, Chris Anderson, in his new book Free, says the theory has lost its resonance in the digital era; free is the new price model. At the same time the establishment media is at wit’s end over free distribution of their content.

The July/August issue of Columbia Journalism Review featured a series of essays titled “No Free Lunch” discussing the challenges facing news organizations, and how they might be able to recoup some money for the content they produce.

“Open for Business,” by Michael Shapiro, suggests a free/paid hybrid, whereby some subscribers subsidize the free content. While society is indeed accustomed to free content, the fact remains that people do pay for in-depth and exclusive information they deem valuable. Sports sites provide “insider information” for a fee. And online versions of established publications have successfully utilized the “freemium” approach described in “Free,” in which some content is free, but there are costs to access enhanced information and services. Among those in this category are Consumer Reports, The Wall Street Journal and Congressional Quarterly.

The catch, of course, is that there has to be something that people are willing to pay for, and this requires an investment in reporting and creating content of value. This is where the paying customers also come in handy; they help underwrite the cost of producing more quality content that brings in both paying and free eyeballs. This fits into freemium’s 5 percent rule: the small percentage that pays for a premium version end up covering the costs for the many who access the content for free.

Clearly the establishment media created many of its own problems. They opted for the network television model: free access, mass audiences and high ad rates. Perhaps news organizations should have taken the cable television model instead: subscription fees and ad revenues driven by quality content. Ironically this approach is what newspapers and magazines operated under for decades, before the internet led to some rash, and arguably faulty, business decisions.

And now many media giants such as Murdoch and the Associated Press are circling the wagons, adamant about putting a price on the content. They believe that what they produce is valuable and merits a fee.

But just because media companies facing a crisis want to change the game, it doesn’t mean the people will necessarily go along. At least that’s what is indicated by a study by Hsiang Iris Chyi of the University of Arizona, “Willingness to Pay for Online News: An Empirical Study on the Viability of the Subscription Model.” The 2005 study randomly surveyed 853 Hong Kong residents, and found that very few would be interested in paying for information they’ve become accustomed to having for free. And those that were willing to cough up the cash tended to be both older and newspaper subscribers, demonstrates a generation gap rather than an income disparity. The takeaway from Chyi’s report, though, is that it will be difficult for media companies to rely on a subscription model for economic viability.

Rather than prying open the wallets of a generation used to free online content, Free suggests news organizations need to find ways to generate revenue within this new economic reality.

Slides:

EconFreeDiscussion

Slideshare Version

Resources:

Chyi, H.I. (2009). Willingness to Pay for Online News: An Empirical Study on the Viability of the Subscription Model. Journal of Media Economics, 18(2), 131-142.

Osnos, P. (2009). What’s a Fair Share In the Age of Google?. Columbia Journalism Review, 48(2), 25-28.

Shapiro, M. (2009). Open for Business. Columbia Journalism Review, 48(2), 29-35.

Week 2 of class provided a nice overview of the economics basics, explained in a fairly easy-to-understand manner. This baseline should be helpful as we delve further into the subject matter. However, as I become re-acquainted with Adam Smith, I’m not overly impressed with how some of his theories have played out.

It’s clear that the economics of information varies greatly from the time-worn economic approaches applied to industry. And my reading of the first few chapters of Free support this. Scarcity doesn’t apply to information, and distribution costs are minimal. Information is, indeed, the epitome of high fixed costs, low marginal costs.

From our discussion, Adam Smith isn’t getting too many plaudits from me. His definition of  “perfect competition” is elusive in reality; it’s far too narrow a definition to give the competitive markets credibility in this context. There is just too much product differentiation for this type of competition to apply.

Going further, society and economy these days are far too diverse to be governed any more by the standard economic dogma and theories. I’m guessing that all the books we read this term are likely to reinforce this. In particular, “externalities” are challenging the premise that all market decisions are based on money. Instead, we are seeing externalities such as reputation playing a much larger role in the economics of information. We regularly see people creating and sharing for free to enhance their standing, rather than working within a typical market relationship. And as we review more of Adam Smith’s theories, I’m willing to bet that he has some corollaries that do apply to the present.

Lastly… we spoke about it briefly, but the topic of whether online content will find a paying audience is very interesting to me, too. I’ll be focusing on this subject in my discussion/presentation for class next week. See you then.

As I wade into this new class, defining what I want to gain from it is worthwhile both to my learning and how the class may be structured to accommodate my interests.

I don’t have a particularly strong understanding of economics. Sure, I can make cursury comments, which typically are based on something I’ve read online or in the paper. But a primary objective of mine is to be able to speak knowledgeably about economics, and be able to assess sides of an argument in a more cognitive manner. So a background in the basics and how they apply to communications and media. This needn’t be too technical; I want to focus on learning, rather than grapple with comprehending the arcane.

More specifically, I work in the media world, so examining current trends in the business models will be of significant interest. There are an abundance of questions these days about an uncertain media future, and hopefully this class will enable me to answer them with an inkling of expertise.

Among questions of interest that I’d like to better understand: Where is the money going to come from, and where will it go? Is the advertising business dying? Will anybody pay for content? What business models will replace newspapers? Will monopolies give way to smaller companies? What will be the successful businesses and opportunies in the digital media world?

Further, I want to be able to articulate why I think a certain business model has merit, or not. I would like to present ideas as to how my business (and others) can move forward in a manner that makes sound business and economic sense.

It’s a long list, and surely more questions and objectives will arise. But it’s a good starting point.

Candidate Use of the Internet in the 2008 Elections

A Report by Jody Chatalas and Katie Hall

The recent elections represented the high point in Internet campaigning, as an online presence was a crucial element in most campaigns. The Obama campaign gets the most publicity, and deservedly so, for its innovative online efforts in fundraising, communicating and organizing. But throughout the entire country the Internet was an important ingredient of political campaigns, from congress to county judge, from the governor’s mansion to the local firehouse.

With this vast diffusion of campaign websites in mind, we’ve examined several local campaign sites to assess how they were used and to what degree of effectiveness. We’ve also spoken to some local politicos to gather further insight into the prevalence of digital tools in campaigns, and what the future may hold in that regard.

The Virtual Campaign

If politicians don’t measure very high on the public opinion scale, the press doesn’t stand much taller. Both are roundly criticized by Americans in polls gauging public satisfaction. It’s really no coincidence, though, as the fortunes of both have been intertwined since the early days of our democracy. And the media even inherited its nickname as the Fourth Estate due to its relationship with the three branches of government.

In Political News Media, from Governing With The News, Timothy Cook deconstructs this co-dependent relationship, and makes clear that far too often editorial and news coverage decisions are made with political considerations. Cook says the news media plays a role in the authoritarian allocation of values by “reinforcing political power or providing resources to official actors to pursue their agendas.” This manifests itself in bias and news judgment, and the results have an effect upon the general news process.

While it can be depressing to think of our watchdogs being in cahoots with the political class, the press is not in itself a government institution that makes decisions for our citizens. The Constitution carves out freedom of the press in the bill of rights. And Richard Neustadt describes the relationship as “separate institutions sharing power”. The media isn’t involved in the decision-making process, but it certainly can influence decisions.

At the same time, though, news entities are run by corporations, and that inevitably leads to decisions based on business considerations. It comes as no surprise, then, that the state of the media faces a crisis. It isn’t fully self-inflicted by the practice of journalism, however; the press has been wounded by its business practices and the emergence of the Internet as a means of mass communication. Print media in particular is suffering, and the Internet is a nearly perfect foil. Among newspapers’ largest costs are printing and distribution (trees and trucks), two elements that online publications don’t require. Papers have also seen their ad revenues diminishing, in many cases moving to online sources. And even though online ad sales are on the rise for newspapers, it isn’t nearly enough to overcome the loss of print ad dollars. David T. Clark, a research analyst for Deutsch Bank, says that the Internet “steals readers, destroys pricing, does classified advertising perfectly, offers greater targeting, breaks news 24/7… and gives it away for free.” This is the reality that media companies are facing as they consider the future of their once-proud and profitable franchises.

Quality journalism will always be in demand. How the business adapts to the challenges will determine its ability to provide it. There is no shortage of ideas as to how to sustain journalism in our society, and some of these potential models are well underway. Using foundation funding to support community journalism is becoming more common for some websites, including ChiTown Daily News and Voice of San Diego. Others seek to have donors cover the costs of news coverage, a crowdfunding approach, including investigative reporting outfit ProPublica and David Cohn’s Spot.Us. And the overarching trend toward community news, and building strong hyperlocal sites, signifies the perceived value of local advertising and the pride that citizens have in their neighborhoods. Cohn stated in a recent interview that ideally there would be thousands of media start-ups trying to get a piece of the online action. That number would eventually be winnowed down, he says, but those that survive will be setting the stage for successful news business models.

I’m a big supporter of this online local news approach, and the promise it holds. But there’s also a need to better use the Internet to build community. Community networks have existed since the mid-‘90s, and they were created to promote civic, social and educational community objectives. In Putting the Community Back Into Community Networks: A Content Analysis, Michael Horning examines if these networks have lived up to their noble intentions.

While community networks have been helpful in building social capital, Horning finds that they have not been particularly effective at promoting a stronger democracy. There are several reasons why this may, including a lack of logistics, manpower, funding and quality content.

I believe these networks can provide value, but they just aren’t adjusting rapidly enough to embrace the growing capabilities of communicating and organizing online. The Seattle Community Network (SCN) is a perfect example. Many groups use SCN to gain an online presence and communicate with members. However even those efforts are not being done particularly well. Furthermore, the functionality of the tools is vastly out of date and difficult to use. SCN certainly succeeds as a bridge across the digital divide, providing access to disparate organizations, but beyond that the results are decidedly mixed.

The thrust of a community network is a worthwhile goal with great potential. But under the current framework, it will never reach its promise. I see great opportunity in combining community news, providing digital tools, and promoting collective action. Social media tools, including blogs, wikis, forums and videos can all be utilized to make the site interactive and engaging. And if community networks were created as non-commercial entities, a truly successful network may necessitate a business approach with ad revenues, service fees, crowd-funding and foundation/government grants.

Moving forward, journalism, politics and community will find a way to co-exist in a productive and successful manner in the digital era. Settling on the best approach to this hybrid is going to require experimentation, funding, and an understanding of digital media. This subject is of great interest to me, and I will continue to delve into methods that integrate news, politics, community and the online world.

Another big election is in the books. We’ve expended energy following, analyzing and funding candidates and causes. And in the wake of tallying the votes, many are already planning for and looking ahead to the next visit to the polls.

What often gets overlooked in the election aftermath, however, is the actual management of the government. After all, the entire point of getting elected is to run the government.

Similarly, the recent election heralded the prominence of the Internet as a significant tool in the campaigns. Obama’s use of digital media is considered by many to be revolutionary in its approach, engaging and communicating with millions of citizens. But what about the Internet’s role in government? If the wired world is contributing so much to our society, then it must be applicable to the practices within city halls.

Federal and local governments, and our elected officials, have long attempted to utilize the power of digital technology to provide better service and access for citizens. In E-Government, from The Politics of Internet Communication, Robert Klotz provides an overview of how the Internet has been used by our government since the early ‘90s, including the successes and limitations of these efforts.

The benefits of e-government parallel those we typically derive from the wired world in our daily lives, including access, efficiency, and openness. As citizens, we have become accustomed to using the Internet to more easily obtain information, find forms, submit payments, and communicate with government.

Government websites are in abundance, yet the offerings and capabilities vary greatly. On the federal level, our many agencies have sites that citizens visit and use on a massive scale. The Internal Revenue Service is the most common destination, with the public finding it much easier to get documents, publications and information about taxes online rather than in person. Information from health, weather and census agencies, among others, is also accessed frequently on our Federal servers.

Local governments, although not to the same magnitude as the feds, provide numerous web resources as well. State DMV departments have made vehicle registration easier online, and some even offer web cameras showing real-time traffic. Local governments, though, have to prioritize their online offerings to best reflect the needs of its citizenry. Fishing and hunting licensing may be more popular in Montana, while information about affordable services more common in areas of higher poverty. Some governments have created databases of health care providers, while others pour resources into crime prevention and statistics. Interestingly enough, Washington State is cited as the national leader in its practice of e-government.

While the government is finding ways to embrace technology, elected officials are receiving spotty reviews in their efforts. As Klotz details, all officeholders have websites, but they tend to emphasize self-promotion over legislative information and voting records. These sites encourage citizen input, but in most cases it’s become overwhelming for the staffs to keep up with the deluge of public comments, in many cases generated by mass e-mail campaigns. That said, there are clearly well-run officeholder websites, which would seem to mirror the level of importance the elected official and his staff places upon this transformative technology. So it’s little surprise that president-elect Obama already has a new website up, filled with transition information, job applications, blog entries and an appeal for supporters to share inspirational campaign experiences.

And as the Internet’s role in Obama’s election is considered revolutionary, there may also be some effects upon his governance. His vast online network, including the millions of e-mail and text addresses, will suddenly find itself in a bit of a dual role. Not only will these grassroots supporters advocate for the Obama agenda, they will also serve as watchdogs, scrutinizing the president’s plans and putting pressure on him to honor his promises.

Digital Deliberation

It’s obvious that technology is having impact on our democracy, from campaigns to government services. Still, one area of our public process which begs for attention is the of use digital technology to improve public participation. Thomas Beierle studies this in Digital Deliberation: Engaging the Public Through Online Policy Dialogues (Democracy Online, 2004). Beierle examines an online dialogue sponsored by the EPA in 2001. This public deliberation was an online bulletin board discussion covering two weeks, and which included more than 1,100 participants commenting on the agency’s draft Public Involvement Policy.

Beierle says that this public dialogue involved many more participants than the other standard outreach methods, including public meetings, public comments and advisory committees. And he concluded that “the EPA dialogue demonstrates that such processes can fill a niche in the public participation tool box by bringing together large groups of people in an interactive process of exchanging information.”

Of note, though, is the lack of diversity of those who took part in this process. Beierle found that the participants were regular users of the Internet, including 86 percent who went online at least 10 times per week. Considering that in 2001 only 44 percent of the US used the Internet, and you see some signs of a digital divide. Indeed, Beierle says that the education, race and age of the participants were consistent with characteristics of such a divide.

The Digital Divide

Andrew Chadwick examines this digital divide in Access, Inclusion, and the Digital Divide (Internet Politics). His in-depth analysis of the subject covers global usage, as well as just within the US. He points out that this inequality of access to the Internet will likely have adverse effects on the less fortunate, similar to income and education gaps. And as might be expected, money and schooling (and race and geography) are often cited as primary attributes of the cultures and individuals which are most invested with digital technology.

It does appear that a main cause of the global digital divide is economic. Many hail deregulation for increasing US usage due to competition and pricing. But this is countered by Chadwick who indicates that government can play an active role in ensuring more people have access to technology. As mentioned, education level is an indicator of those more inclined to use the Internet. But some argue this isn’t so bad. Rogers, whose diffusion of innovation theory is applied to nearly every technological advancement, believes that “education oils the wheels of innovation by providing an audience open to new ideas.”

The digital divide is an area of concern for governments and activists. The Internet as a great equalizer cannot live up to that potential if a sizeable portion of society cannot take part. Understanding the divide will hopefully help lead to solutions that will close the gap. Among others, an organization in Philadelphia is currently working toward this objective; the Media Mobilizing Project is holding a meeting on November 19 that will focus on developing a city-wide agenda around the digital divide. Its goal is to “ensure that high-speed Internet connections are available to all residents, particularly those living in poor and working-class communities so they may obtain city services, apply for jobs, research health information… and be civically engaged.”

E-Government Will Continue to Expand

Government’s embrace of the Internet was to be expected, and it is having a profound effect on efficiency and communications. Citizens like accessing their government online, and want their officials to continue the practice. And just as we’ve seen staggering growth in the sophistication of web usage and applications, we should expect to experience an expansion in e-government beyond the basics now in place.

In acknowledging that the Internet can improve government, the approach to applying it seems straightforward: examine every component of the government in the context of technology. Establish how the digital tools can help make services and communication better, and set out to implement it. Such initiatives require dedication and financial support, but the government that neglects to do such is failing its citizenry.