Mdot stands for “My Dad’s on Twitter but he doesn’t know why” – an event which took place yesterday as part of Fazeley Digital ‘09. Part lecture, part performance, the idea was to mind map some current thinking about Twitter by writing on a wall in an empty studio space at Birmingham’s newest digital media hub, Fazeley Studios.
Some people, including those who make their living in social media, seemed confused as to what it was all about: I think it was about the process rather than the content, and for that reason I found it really interesting.
Here’s how it worked:
- Alex & Matt, aka Drawnalism, took the lead on the wall: they wrote and visualised what was being said. All were welcome to join them by creating their own artwork, or by modifying what was there already.
- Four speakers (Dave Harte, Marc Reeves, Jacki Booth, and I) led a conversation informed by the title “My Dad’s on Twitter but he doesn’t know why?”. We each gave a short speech then took questions from the room.
- Kate Manion, Chris Unitt and Nick Booth were all designated as live bloggers, but as you’d expect from a Birmingham social media audience, there was a lot of chatter on Twitter – which was of course displayed in the room on TwitterFall
- Comments from Twitter and from the audience were encouraged, and fed into the discussion and the wall
- Anyone could write on the wall at any time they wanted to
- The whole affair was compered by Karl Binder who’s team also filmed and streamed the event
What was most interesting about the process was the reticence of the “audience” to write on the wall. When I spoke to Karl & Kate in the run up to the event I was expecting something anarchic. Karl had created a space where we were not just allowing but encouraging people to write on walls and have an opinion and we thought people would grasp that with both hands. In fact what happened was that they observed the mapping, they spoke when asked to speak, and they addressed things to the speakers. Rather than being facilitators of a discussion, we’d become lecturers for the day.
Perhaps the layout of the room and giving four of us microphones encouraged that dynamic: it looked more like a performance than a conversation. Perhaps if we gave everyone a pen at the start, or laid out the room differently then things would have been more interactive. Perhaps people just don’t like writing on walls?
But then suddenly something really interesting happened. We finished. And then just like at the end of a pantomime, when the children come on stage, the “audience” took over. They came up front, they took up their pens, and they added to the wall.
Somebody mentioned during the speaking session that social media is a performance. Sometimes we forget that it’s a solo performance: people are happy to have their voice, to publish their thoughts, but not while the world is looking.
#1 by Karl Binder at June 12th, 2009
Jon, I agree whole heartedly. We ran this event with a format not knowing quite what would happen, whether the audiences both in the room and online would engage with the speakers and the ‘wall’. The ideas added to the wall are of course of interest, but the process and interaction was the most interesting thing for me. As you say people seemed happier to tweet from within the event, which then appeared on the Twitterfall at the front of the room as opposed to getting up and drawing/writing on the wall physically.
Maybe our media socialites are a shy bunch?
The other thing that I found interesting was the lack of a string of threaded ideas from each concept or thought raised. I was expecting ideas to connect and run from one to another, with plenty of cross over, where what we actually achieved was a ’splat’ of ideas all standing alone on the wall. The most we probably achieved joined up might be 2 or 3. Maybe this portrays a physical representation of Twitter itself? Lots of ideas, many getting RT and repeated, but many starting and stopping in their own space.
I am interested in ‘what next’? It’s important to post these observations now, along with the pictures of the wall, and see if we can gain anything from this.
Next time you’re right. Pens on the door.
#2 by Nick Booth at June 13th, 2009
I think there may be other ways to encourage people to write on the wall.
Having it directly behind the speakers makes it a very exposed lace, so most people would shrink from that. Also having lots of seats means people choose a fixed spot and stay there. So wall to the side of the speakers, fewer chairs than people?
#3 by Matt Buck at June 16th, 2009
The simplest ideas are often the best and pens by the door would have been lovely, but sadly, there was no budget available for this – this time around.
The dynamics of people in the space were very interesting and we certainly learned a lot. – mainly about what not to do :-/
I agree with Nick that the adversarial nature of the set up prevented early interaction from the participants, although that may not have been all bad while the idea was established.
Turning the presentation through 90 degree might have helped alleviate this – although we would have got a tennis head effect caused by the competing visual stimuli.
But, overall, it was a fun and interesting experience for both Alex and I and we trust we will get the chance to do it again.
#4 by Jon Hickman at June 16th, 2009
Thanks Matt – I hope you do too. While more engagement with the wall would have been great, having you guys professionally visualising the conversation really added a dimension to things.