On the other hand, I think Wes was a bit kid-gloved with Pearson/Dr. Roberts, and I have little faith that Dr. Robert's initial answers (or lack thereof at times) to Wes' questions suggest a real evolution in corporate thinking.
Before I share the longer comment I left on Wes' blog explaining what I mean by that comparison, let me re-iterate 2 key things first:
Been
mulling a few assumptions and questions in my head since first
commenting last night. Here is the big picture of what I’m thinking
through:
Ultimately, this is not about ownership. This is a matter of communication.
First, on a very practical level, someone/org needed to organize
(Steve H.) or offset the costs of (Pearson?) the use of space, power,
equipment, furniture, schedule, planning, et al of the “EduBloggerCon”.
No conference/hotel is going to give away any of the above no matter
how much “open-source” and “2-way convo” semantics are thrown around by
participating bloggers (et al). It would be naive to question any
company (such as Pearson) being involved or any person/org (Steve H.)
putting it together ahead of time to his/its professional benefit.
Bloggers/Teachers may want it to remain a free-sharing atmosphere, but
someone’s got to keep the lights on and send out the invites.
Second, anytime an event shifts from a relatively “impromptu”
meet-up to an “anticipated” performance due to popularity and Google
Juice, the grass roots warm-fuzzies are going to be replaced with a bit
of impersonal mechanization in future years. This feeling will be
magnified if you have a combo of original evangelists (who helped
inspire/legitimize it year one) and anxious newbies (who heard about it
virtually the first time around, eager to see it F2F the second time)
coming together…as well as the sudden arrival of an corporate outsider.
Given these 2 assumptions/reflections, I can’t help but wonder what
all the fuss is about. “EduBloggerCon” would NOT even have existed had
Steve H. not pulled the organizational levers; likewise, it only makes
sense from a professional (yes, teachers: that word has many
connotations!) point of view to solidify and off-set the costs of the
event through partnership. Anyone that has a problem with lack of
warm-fuzzies in v2.0 of “EduBloggerCon” is either waxing nostalgic or
naively.
Or maybe not.
As I said above, this is not an issue of ownership.
It is, however, a matter of communication.
Skipping the but-it-doesn’t-feel-good-to-me reactions that any
person is allowed to have, there isn’t much value in charging Pearson
(directly) or Steve H. (indirectly, although I’m struck by the nearly
non-existent conversation by fellow-bloggers/’colleagues’ to request
that Steve H. throw his voice into the mix, esp. given any
expected/potential/assumed professional/proprietary/financial gain on
his part) with tarnishing the nostalgic nature of our collective memory
of year one of “EduBloggerCon”.
On the other hand, this is a profound opportunity for talking about
communication. Intentions matter little if there aren’t clear
statements ahead of time and after the fact. Likewise, legal details,
publication promises, competitive leverage, and signed
agreements/releases matter little if the very evangelists in question
are being talked around (or ignored).
Having listened a second time to Dr. Roberts’ replies to Wes’
questions, I could not help but hear the standard business response
(mix defensive marketing posture with standard legal prep) in her
answers. There was a great deal of instinctive focus on why Pearson had
a right to be there and how it behooves them (as the largest
educational publisher on the planet, paraphrasing Dr. Roberts) to pay
attention to something like “EduBloggerCon” (hence, why she/Pearson
approached Steve H. to get involved/record/edit/publish). On the other
hand, there was very little acknowledgment of what the majority of
“EduBloggerCon” participants/fans wanted to hear:
“We respect what you’re doing. We’d like your input on how we
use/share the recordings we’re making. We understand that traditional
business practices may run counter to the spirit of blogger meet-up’s
like this…and we want to find a way to learn with/from you. Yes, we
need to off-set our investment (time/resources), but we also want to
ensure that we remain a legit ‘partner’ in this evolving
educational/2-way publication landscape. Oh, by the way [in a nod to
Dean S. above], we’d like to offer all participants/audience members a
complimentary breakfast and invite anyone interested to participate in
a series of discussions and virtual forums over the next year to flesh
out some of the most salient ideas. Please let us know if you’d like to
be involved. And thank you for letting us join the conversation.”
Or something of that spirit.
I suspect that if anyone listened to the podcast in full (once,
twice, more), they’d hear little of that in her literal answers or tone
of voice. Likewise, I have a great deal of respect for Wes’s
tone/optimism, but I also wonder why the Q’s came across more like
underhand softball tosses than honest professional inquiry based on
some legitimate concerns by a wide range of participants and distant
viewers/listeners alike.
As I hinted at above, I’m also very surprised that Steve H. (a man I
respect and have enjoyed F2F time with in the past; a guy who has been
consistently weaving together a formal network of educators the world
round through a variety of digital tools) has not been asked to a)
explain/defend the original contract, b) his communication
before/during/after this year’s “EduBloggerCon”, and c) how he’d like
Pearson/himself to go forward to maintain everyone’s faith in his/their
judgment.
Again, this is not an issue of ownership. It is, however, a real issue of communication.
Claiming, “We have a right because…”, will only alienate. Choosing,
instead, to listen and to honestly respond with humility will create
fans and allies.
And we’re all better for the 2nd option.
Respectfully, I look forward to this comment thread’s evolution, as
well as hearing more from Steve H. and Pearson as time unfolds.
Recent Comments