Waterloo, Web & Whimsy

For the last few weeks I've been experimenting with what it feels like to read a print newspaper every day. I chose to use the National Post for this experiment (although I occasionally swap it out for a Globe & Mail). Today, unequivocally, I'm reverting to my online-only habits.

The reason? Simply put: the local print papers make me ill. The sheer volume of negative news that fills the pages leaves me physically unwell. Here's a sampling of the articles in today's paper:

"Windsor raid lands son of Imam slain by FBI"
"Crowd looks on as girl, 15, gang raped, police say"
"Daytime murder in Naples remains unsolved"
"Rwandan sentenced to life for Genocide"
"British Columbia's Macabre Mystery"
"Pair planned to kill classmates with Molotov cocktails, court told"
"Crop protection - Booby traps, armed guards getting common"

And I haven't even made it to page 10.

I'm not contending that bad news doesn't exist or that it should be hidden from the public - I recognize that bad news does sell more papers. However, personally, I'd rather believe that I live in a world that has more news worth celebrating than news to fear. In a society where we people are information-rich and attention-poor, we need to pick and choose our sources of information and I am reverting to my online sources. For those that are interested, here are some of the tools I use to better tailor my incoming feed of news:

http://www.dailyperfect.com (they predict the news you're interested in - very cool)
http://www.twitter.com (yes, I use it for my news)
[AgnosticPlatform] (a locally developed app that will be open to the public mid-november. exciting)

Sorry National Post, but your generic sensationalism has overwhelmed my desire for local updates. Instead, I will continue to crawl the web looking for more satisfying fare. 

Yesterday I presented at the Creative Community Forum (if you have no idea what I spoke about - here is a blog post with my thoughts). After the talk I was asked "Then what would you change?" Here's my answer:

Fundamentally, this is a communications problem. Additional services (like an Arts Accelerator) will help, but it won't make a difference if we don't change the way we communicate. At the core of this issue is that Waterloo Region's demographic and cultural makeup has changed, but the communication methods used by our arts community (on average) hasn't.

1. Spend less money on newspaper and bus shelter ads. Yes, these work for a certain demographic, but we have immigrant and young professionals that will never see these ads. We need to redistribute some of that marketing budget.
    
2. Make a concerted effort to reach out to the local non-institutional communication groups. We have entrepreneurs and cultural groups maintaining extensive lists specifically to distribute this type of information. We should start syndicating some of their content (let the community know what they are up to) and we should start distributing our institutional content to those list managers in a more organized and consistent way.
     
3. Allocate a small budget for experimental marketing. Have someone responsible for always trying new tools like new magazines that crop up, new technologies, new community groups. We need to be more agile.
    
4. Use Social Media better. I don't mean to develop a comprehensive strategy, rather just make it part of the daily operations. Each of our galleries should be using Twitter to describe their events and programs, and they should be following movers and shakers locally to identify how they can make their programs more relevant to the community.
    
5. Speak specifically about opportunity to the students. Ken Coats, dean of UW Arts admitted that the university needs to be more open. Very much like attracting students to a job, we need to attract these students to stay and innovate. Communitech and VeloCity act like "tech entrepreneurship" recruiters on campus. We should create similar "arts entrepreneurship" recruiters.

Yes, the above answers may not be a comprehensive solution (any and all suggestions are welcome) but I do believe they represent some great steps that are still in line with the Creative Enterprise Agenda.

And, for those that are interested in some louder, more audacious goals - here are some ideas I'd enjoy fleshing out with anyone that would like to chat over coffee:

1. A VeloCity style student residence, with more of a focus on arts & culture
2. Moving the UW fine arts campus to Kitchener Civic Block
3. Starting an arts-oriented venture or angel group

Today was the Creative Enterprise Forum at the Waterloo Inn (if you weren't there, it would be good to read The Record's coverage and Julianna Yau's notes) and I was asked to speak to why it was important to young professionals. It's an interesting topic, because the economic importance of a vibrant arts and cultural sectors seems so, well, obvious. How was I to elaborate on what was already said?

However, as I started to dissect the points and goals, there was a consistent theme: the agenda speaks about attracting and retaining the best and brightest talent to live and work in Waterloo Region, but it was always in the context of creating jobs. Perhaps it was assumed, but regardless the agenda didn't speak to retaining entrepreneurs - people who create ventures be they festivals, theatre companies, films or businesses.

Similarly, as many people at the forum pointed out, the agenda did not do enough to emphasize nurturing the talent that already exists in our region, or that is already coming to our region on its own.

So, to re-frame the goal, I put forward that the agenda should be aiming to nurture the existing in and attract the best creative talent to Waterloo Region.

But this goal still does not sufficiently address the entrepreneurs and innovators, and so I encourage everyone to keep these people in mind. Here is a dissection of my argument.

Why my focus on innovators and entrepreneurs

They are critical because of the economic impact they can have. For example: funding for a contract position or re-training an individual employs one person at a time. Inspiring an innovator or entrepreneur to launch a new festival or keep their software company in Waterloo Region can employ dozens if not hundreds. By specifically nurturing young creative leaders, we are planting the seeds for continued growth here in the region, rather than simply just trying to attract employees from other communities. By attracting people that are passionate and able to attract others to their cause, our efforts will be magnified.

Why focus on talent already here?

Many bright minds are already attracted to our region by our world-class educational institutions and our unmatched entrepreneurial clusters - however once they graduate we're losing them. For some it happens immediately, for others it happens a couple years out. But either way, we have a pattern of attracting ambitious and innovative people, then loosing many of them to other communities.

It's not that they dislike Waterloo Region - it's that we can't help them create the life they want.

We have already successfully built a community that attracts bright minds - we don't need to change that process. Rather, the issue is our execution once they arrive. To use a business analogy - our marketing is great, but our customer care program could use some help.

Why is a vibrant cultural scene important? Wouldn't these people create one?

We intuitively know that a vibrant cultural sector makes our community more attractive to potential employees, and we know that a vibrant cultural sector will naturally support an increased number of creative jobs. However, what is just as, if not more, important is that a vibrant cultural sector is required to engage and inspire the creative innovators I mentioned above.

The reason is that a vibrant cultural sector can apply a uniquely compelling argument at a critical point of a young professional's life. There are two elements to the argument: a sense of home and a sense of opportunity.

First, cultural activities build relationships and ties to the region. Things like having a favourite local band, regularly attending events in a public square, ethnic festivals, hot clubs, familiar pubs and volunteering help make a place feel like home. This sense of home is important to both business and arts innovators. If we can make Waterloo Region feel like home to these people, we will retain more of them and those that leave will have a higher likelihood of returning.

Second, beyond a sense of home, young leaders look for opportunity. They go to where their ideas can take root and flourish. Not just ideas about building businesses and careers, but also their ideas about music, about theatre, about hobbies, about community! And this is where we're not doing enough.

For example, we have a strong sense of tech and entrepreneurship. If someone wants to launch a tech start-up, the support systems available are awe-inspiring and it only makes sense for them to stay local. However, if someone wants to write movie screenplays, where would they go? If someone wants to start a band, where would they go? If someone wanted to start a street art club, where would they go? Our creative sector, as it is, doesn't have the capacity to support, or in some cases the exposure to reach, the people who have these ideas. And so, these innovators determine that to create the lives they want, they have to leave Waterloo Region.

If we can build a more nurturing environment for these ideas on top of helping the region become the home of our young innovators, we will retain an incredible pool of passion and ambition: passion and ambition that will lead to cultural and economic growth.

Fred Wilson made a post yesterday describing how  Web Entrepreneurs are the New Urban Architects.  Although he’s correct in many in his observations, I don’t think he has gone far enough. I believe today’s Web Entrepreneurs are the New Citizens.

What unifies the examples Fred gave (Twitter, Foursquare, Outside.in, CitySourced, etc) and other Web Entrepreneurs is that they want to make people’s lives better. Fred’s examples are all very urban-centric, but there are dozens of web entrepreneurs that are focusing on larger-scale initiatives.

The folks behind CharityChamps, for example, are working to help build a system of micro-philanthropy, and the people developing Akoha are running a social reality game to make money while doing good. We’ve seen a blending between For-Profit and Social-Profit organizations.

Where does this come from? I’m by no means an expert, but I think this comes from the democratic nature of the web combined with the relatively low-cost of start-up for web businesses. Web technologies have empowered the public to have a stronger voice and to effect change that they were previously unable to do. This is further supported by initiatives like ChangeCamp in Toronto and the many Government 2.0 initiatives in North America. Similarly, because of the rapid rate of change, it’s possible to launch a web-based business with comparatively less experience (e.g. imagine the experience and connections required to launch a telecom or automotive company), which means younger audience in entrepreneurship than we ever could before. Web entrepreneurs are younger and more socially engaged than their offline entrepreneur counterparts.*

What does this mean? Rather than simply looking to web entrepreneurs for urban planning ideas, we should be looking to them for new thoughts on citizenship as a whole: citizens of a country, of a municipality and even of a company. A large number of web entrepreneurs fit that mould of someone that has the passion to act on great ideas, balanced with an interest and passion for the betterment of society.

Over the next few years we’re going to see the floodgates open and more socially-conscious web plays will hit our radar. More importantly, though, over the next couple decades we’ll see the founders of these companies trying to effect change at a greater and greater level. The next generation of government leaders won’t be actors and athletes– they’ll be entrepreneurs.

*I have absolutely no hard data to back this up - it is based on annecdotal and my own experience. Any data supporting or refuting this point is welcome!