Education, privacy, democracy, copyright, media and commerce. The world around us is changing. Things we thought were going to stay the way they have been for a long time are mutating into something totally new. The culprit?

Digitalization.

Digitalization is changing every aspect of society. And yet, it seems there is no public discussion about what all this will mean for each and every one of us. Yes, some people are talking about what the future will bring. But they are mostly looking at a single industry or just a small part of society.

I am talking about a holistic view. Everything. The whole shebang.

I would have expected some politicians or business big-wigs to have something to say about all this by now. After all, we are already living in the future. 2008. TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT.

But no. They are still acting like it is business as usual. No one has stepped up and kick-started the public debate on the issues that we are going to face in just a couple of years. Actually, the music industry has been facing the issues for some time now.

I think there are two reasons for the silence:

1. They just don’t get it.
Things have been pretty much the same for a long time. Cars, electricity, tv, the telephone, all the major inventions have been in use for a long time. And the business and social models have been pretty musch set for some time now. And the people I am talking about have been handsomely rewarded for not changing for a long time.

Don Tapscott writes in his great book Wikinomics: “This is the first time in history when children are an authority on something really important.”

The kids and youngsters are the authority. They live digital. The old guys are still living in analog.

2. They are afraid.
Afraid of losing power. Money. Influence. You name it. Afraid of losing what they currently have. Because the smart ones do realize that there is a lot to lose.

Here is my New Years resolution: I am going to try to get the discussion started. Since I do not have any power or connections it might be a little difficult. Fortunately, I do have one or two digital aces up my sleeve.

Working for Gyllene Skor I get to talk to a lot of clients and help them figure out what would be the best way to do business in the digital world. One sector that currently really stands out is media. Each and every media company in Finland seems to be in some sort of turmoil. They have a huge challenge in turning from publishers to relationship companies.

Why relationship?

Digital media is turning content into a commodity. It is impossible for any company to control content once it has been let loose in a digital format. Copying and distributing is just too damn easy. Once something is published in a digital format you can be sure that it will be available somewhere else. Just like that.

Producing content is also too easy. Anyone can do it and anyone will. The media companies have very limited resources compared to the number of citizens so the odds are that someone else will be the producer of the content.

The only way to win this is to aim to be the company that people turn to when they need content. It does not matter what the source of the content is. It does not matter who got it first. What matters is who the consumers are going to turn to when they need their daily dose.

The biggest problem the media companies currently have is that their income model is based on volume. The larger the audience, the larger the bill they can send advertisers. The problem is that there is no way you can build a relationship with, let’s say, 50 000 people at a time. Building relationships is a one-on-one thing.

The second problem is that the media companies have their content stuck in internal organizational silos. If one part of the company has produced content, there is no way any other part of the company can publish the content. But digital does not work that way. Consumers are not stuck to one or two sources of content. Consumers are hopping, skipping and jumping to any place where they can get the content they want.

So, the first step for media companies is to figure out how they can start charging for the quality of the contacts they have and not the quantity. The second step is to take down any internal barriers that might hinder the flow of content from one part of the company to the other.

Then they can start thinking about building relationships. Then they can start thinking about how to deliver relevant content in a timely fashion to each and every one of their contacts. It might not even matter if you are the fastest or not. What matters is providing the content your customer wants when he wants it.

Dagens Nyheter has a nice approach to building relationships. Actually, I really hope they see their approach as building relationships and not just another way to mass distribute their content. What they have done is team up with Nokia to provide their content via a special edition Dagens Nyheter mobile phone.

I can not imagine anything more exiting. Dagens Nyheter will know exactly who their customers are and what kind of news they prefer. And the best thing: they know exactly which ads are working for which customer. Serving relevant content AND ads. Now, that is the start of a beautiful relationship.

I will be the first to subscribe when a media company offers a Kindle-type device as one of their subscription options. I will gladly pay a monthly fee for the device and get my content free. Or am I paying for the content and getting the device for free? It really does not matter. What matters is that I am getting the content that I want and the media company is getting paid for it.

The rapid adoption of electronic surveillance methods has gotten quite a lot of coverage in the news lately.  At the same time people have realized that basically everything that they put online will be available there forever. Adding to that all the data from our cellphones, credit cards and other data sources that we might not even be aware of, it is no wonder privacy is one of the topics that pops up on a daily basis.

The alarmists are crying foul. They argue that our basic right to privacy is being severely compromised and that preventive measures should be taken to insure that our current walls of privacy will not be breached.

On the other hand people are voluntarily unveiling more and more private things in their blogs and via services like Flickr and YouTube. Jaiku, Twitter and the Facebook status update are taking this a step further. They allow you to tell your friends about your location and daily going-ons in minutiae detail.

I would argue that secretiveness is actually a by-product of industrialization and mass media. Our level of privacy was quite different when people were still living in smaller communities. Everybody knew the other members of the tribe and it was hard to keep secrets when news and rumors spread rapidly throughout the whole community.

Digital media is taking us back to a time before we put up our walls of privacy. The tribe will no longer be constrained to one physical location but when it comes to privacy they might as well be. Digital media will make it possible for every member of the tribe to know where everyone else is, what they are doing and what they are thinking about.

Having every detail of our lives plastered online for anyone to see will change the way we think about privacy. Being worried that your future boss can see all the stupid things that you did as a teenager will not be an issue anymore because you will be able to see exactly the same things about the boss. When everything is public there will no longer be a need for privacy.

I am hoping that more openness will force people and businesses to be more civil and think more about the consequences of their actions.

I was at a meeting the other day having a discussion about the media habits of teenagers. One of the participants said that he really does not understand why someone would pay real money for virtual furniture, a la Habbo Hotel. I tried to explain that teenagers do not think of online and offline as separate entities. For them, it is just another way to interact with friends. For them virtual is as real as anything else, hence they have no problems with buying a virtual chair.

The odd thing about this is that we currently use quite a few things that only have virtual value to us. No one is buying a book for the paper and ink used to make it. The value of a book is in the information, ideas and emotions that we get from reading the book. The value of a calendar is not in the materials it is made of. It is valuable because it helps you keep appointments and organize your schedule. What about art? Music? And still it seems very hard for some people to get over the fact that something that is “virtual” could be worth paying for.

One could argue that all objects have both a physical and a virtual value. Like the clothes you are wearing. The physical value of them is that they protect you from the elements. The virtual value of clothing is in how they make you and others feel. Comfortable? Underdressed or overdressed? Cute? Professional?

Walls have a physical and a virtual value. They keep the warmth inside and hold the roof up. The virtual value is in how they affect the decor of a room.

The virtual property of the physical objects around us will be the first one move into the digital realm. Photographs and music are good examples of things that have none or very little physical value so they are already mostly digital.

Next in the digital domain will be the functional properties. We already have smart glass which changes from opaque to transparent when an electrical current is applied. So it is just a matter of time when the first walls with digital wallpaper will appear. How about clothing that adjusts itself depending on the temperature? Oh, we sort of have that too…

I’m sure there are many things that will happen as a result of all this but here are three questions that come to mind:

1. What will be the new ways to interact with content when every surface can be a display?
2. Will this finally bring us to a situation where the objects themselves are the interface, thus making technology effectively disappear?
3. Will the possibility to digitally manipulate what an object looks like and what it does have a positive effect on our impact on the environment?

The tribe is having dinner. They have got a nice fire going. The men have been out hunting all day. They have brought back enough meat to last for a while, so everybody is happy. Life seems good.

The eldest is telling an educational story to the younger tribe members. Something that will help them next time they are in a sticky situation with a ferocious animal. All the listeners are tired after a hard day of surviving so only some are focused on listening. Others are already nodding off.

Along comes a marketer. Running and shouting. Waving his hands. Jumping up and down. Doing everything he can to get him and his message noticed.

What do you think might happen?

The tribe thinks they are being attacked by the relative of the animal they just had for dinner? They think that the tribe next door has launched a surprise attack to steal the fresh meat?

It really makes no difference what the tribe actually thinks. The fact is, the marketer is going to get punished. Punished bad. Really bad.

The tribe is not going to ask questions when they feel someone is threatening them. They are going to do everything they can to defend themselves and their possessions.

Marketers in the digital age are increasingly facing the same situation. The tribe is minding their own business in their own little social network. Doing things that they find important. Things they are passionate about. But marketers are still using their mass media tactics. Running and shouting. Jumping and waving their hands. And getting punished.

Now, how will a smart marketer get the tribe interested in what he has to say?

Approach the tribe in daylight. Offer them some handpicked berries. Or anything else that they might find valuable. Give them something and start building a relationship.

The next time it’s going to be much easier. They are going to start to trust the marketer and might even ask him to join them for dinner. Maybe the marketer will be the person that gets to tell the story. If the marketer is really wise he is going to throw in a few questions to get the tribe involved in product development. “Should I call my new thing iron or rion?”

Digital is bringing back the tribe and the only way for a marketer to survive is to build a relationship. A real, honest to god, relationship. No shortcuts. No way to cheat or fake it.

Now, I’m not saying that we will have to literally move to live in caves again. My point is that human nature has not had time to evolve that much even though industrialization and mass media have had a significant impact on society. We still have the same needs and desires that we had some thousands of years ago.

Digital media will enable and at the same time force us to change the way we live. Instead of a tribe living in a cave, our tribes will be defined by our interests and passions regardless of location. A tribe of snowboarders, a tribe of Star Trek fans , a tribe of whatever-the-hell-you-can-think-of.

This “tribalization” will have an enormous effect on every aspect of life: business, privacy, copyright, education, literacy. Just about anything you can name.

Yes, every major change comes with good and bad aspects but I definitely see a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Tribalization has the potential to take us to a new future. One where we can get sustainable living without sacrificing the comforts that we are used to.

The change is not going to be easy and there are going to be casualties, at least of the corporate kind. Some people are going to fight change to the bitter end but eventually everyone will just have to surrender.

I’m heading for my cave. Anybody want to join me?

Read the first part of this post here.

The other day my wife was in the park with our two daughters. On the way back home, they happened to walk by just as some men were lifting a telephone booth on to the back of their truck . Curious as kids are, our eldest daughter asked about the object that the men were taking away . My wife proceeded to explain that only a short time ago mobile phones were not available and that phones used to be of the fixed type. You could not take your phone with you wherever you went. We all learned from the news the next day that the men were taking away the very last phone booth in Helsinki.

I’m not sure if a four year old can actually grasp the concept of a phone that is not mobile. I don’t think she even gave the whole thing much thought but it certainly had an impact on me. I actually think it was somehow the last missing part in a puzzle that I’ve been trying to figure out for some time now.I am part of the last generation that remembers a time when digital was not a part of our everyday life. I really don’t remember too much about life before digital but I clearly do remember trying to stay awake in history class. Someone somewhere had decided that it was important to remember the who and when of the Swedish monarchy. To make it extra hard I seem to recall that all of the kings were named either Karl or Gustaf (or both).

Our education system is not of the most agile kind so I’m guessing that our daughters will have to sit in history class just like I did. They will have to try to stay awake while the teacher tries to get them to remember the who and when of important events like the reign of the fixed line telephone. But for some future generation education will not be about learning mundane facts when the power of digital provides us with the means to access any piece of information at any time.

If digital can challenge the traditions of education I can only wonder what It will do to the other parts of life that we are so accustomed to. And that is the puzzle I have been trying to figure out. From where I’m standing it looks very much that digital will not only take us forward, it will also take us back to where we came from.

A cave.

Read the second part of this post here.