I’m happy to report that there has been some progress (small, but real) from Nokia in terms of addressing it US service problems, which I’ve written about extensively.

First, here’s their most concrete step forward so far: Today, Nokia announced that the long-awaited firmware update for the US N95-3 should be available by early June.

Note that this does not mean Nokia has improved its firmware update process — which (as Beth Kanter, Robert Day, and I noted) is PC-only and very cumbersome, confusing, and annoying. And, in my experience, Nokia’s firmware update process is also risky — it’s what bricked my N95 in April.

…But still, a lot of US N95-3 users have been waiting (and waiting) for this firmware update. News that it’s coming soon appears quite welcome in that community, judging by the initial comments to the announcement.

Also, I’m encouraged to see that Nokia’s Conversations Blog yesterday launched a series of posts on its myriad US service problems. So far, there’s been:

• May 15: Introductory post, in which Nokia promises to specifically respond to my six suggestions for their US operations.
• May 15: A post on US repair turnaround time.
• May 16: A post about the forthcoming N95-3 firmware update.

I think the fact that Nokia has made this discussion so public, and is respecting and addressing concerns raised by users, is a very positive step. Frankly, this is far more than most major companies are willing to do. Nokia is willing to publicly acknowledge its significant problems, and doesn’t seem to consider this inherently risky or bad for business. Many, many companies and organizations could take a lesson from Nokia on this front.

That said, Nokia’s blog does try (understandably) to put as positive a spin as possible on its US service problems. As far as I can tell, they’re not painting a specifically inaccurate rosy picture — but so far they haven’t directly tackled the hardest issues.

Therefore, it’s still up to current and would-be US users of Nokia N-Series phones to keep pushing for clear answers to our most pressing questions and concerns. This is going to take time, folks.

Here’s what I mean…

US SERVICE TURNAROUND TIME:

Short-term fix: Earlier I suggested that one measure Nokia could implement immediately that would help restore US consumers’ confidence would be to guarantee a 7-day US repair/replacement turnaround time. On May 15, James at Nokia wrote:

“Whilst there is a stated 30 day turnaround in the warranty policy, this is designed to capture all Nokia products and typically applies to older products where spares may not be readily available. Nokia USA assures us devices are typically returned within 7-10 days and that 85 per cent of those returns happen within seven days. This is much closer to the time frame Amy (and we) feel is acceptable. To be special, we reckon a five day turnaround for Nseries devices would help boost confidence somewhat.”

To put this in context, this is not new information, and it doesn’t address the issues I raised, which focus on certainty:

• Certain about maximum wait time. The 30 days that Nokia’s warranty currently allows for turnaround time is far too long for such a must-have device. Overnight replacement or loaners (similar to what AT&T offers, according to Ricky Cadden) would be ideal — but for now I’d be willing to settle for just being certain that I’d have a working unit back in my hands in a week. Nokia’s 30-day wiggle room, plus numerous user reports of longer waits, is a worry I’m not willing to tolerate for a $600 must-have device. The point here is not average speed, but a guarantee.
• Certainty that the problem will be fixed. User James Roblimos commented, “What about the numerous reports of people who get their phones back with the same issues they’ve sent them in for? I’ve read numerous horror stories of owners sending in their phones …with hardware problems, only to get them back several weeks later and the only thing the warranty techs did was flash the firmware (sometimes not even that).” [Examples here.]

In this comment I asked Nokia to please respond directly to these core concerns. We’ll see what they have to say next.

US SERVICE LOCATIONS:

In the post about US repair turnaround time, James of Nokia also wrote:

“If you live in NYC or Chicago, you can roll your phone into the local Nokia Flagship store where it’ll be repaired within three days. This is on a par with other device manufacturers in the US, but as Amy rightly points out in another part of her post, there simply isn’t the breadth of Nokia service centres in the US to make this feasible for the masses. That though, could be about to change.”

This is good news for Nokia users in those two cities — which doesn’t include, well, the vast majority of the US. And I’m also curious what user actual experiences with Nokia’s in-store service have been in those cities.

If you’re in NYC or Chicago, I’d love it if you could drop by the Nokia store there and see what the in-store staff have to say about how they handle service, replacements, and loaners. And if you’ve had service done in those stores, how did it go? As we’ve seen with Nokia’s phone customer service, sometimes the reps say very different things from Nokia corporate. It’s worth an on-site reality check.

CLUNKY, RISKY FIRMWARE UPDATE PROCESS

Again, Nokia’s notoriously clunky, PC-only firmware update process is what bricked my N95. Today, James at Nokia contended that Nokia’s update proces really isn’t very risky:

“The NSU [Nokia Software Update] team tells us that over 8 million devices have successfully been through the update process and the failure rate is ‘very low’.”

…If that’s true, then why did the Nokia customer service rep who Beth Kanter spoke to on April 17 tell her that Nokia discourages users from doing the firmware update except as a last resort to combat severe functionality loss? That doesn’t sound very “safe” to me.

Also, Nokia support has claimed that the firmware update bricking problem happens when you try to install a US firmware update on a non-US phone. Since I bought a US N95-3 from Amazon, that creates further concern — are N95 retailers selling non-US phones as US phones?

Who needs all these layers of fear, uncertainty, and doubt? It may be that Nokia needs to train its customer service reps better on this issue, they’re sowing considerable concern in the US market.

In this comment today I reiterated to Nokia that their firmware update process (not just the firmware version) is a huge hassle for US consumers — and far inferior to the user experience offered by their main US competitor, Apple.

In my comment I’ve asked Nokia to specifically comment on whether, when, and how they plan to make firmware updates less painful — and also Mac-friendly. We’ll see what they say.

NEW PHONES SHOULD HAVE NEW FIRMWARE

Especially since Nokia’s firmware update process is so awful, it’s especially discouraging that right now brand-new N95-3s are being shipped to US customers with old firmware. ZDnet’s Matthew Miller wrote:

“Nokia’s support for these high end devices will have to get much better before I can recommend people go out and spend US$500+ for a device optimized for U.S. 3G bands. Every other Nokia N95 has received a firmware upgrade, except for the N95-3 North American version that actually came out before some other devices. This apparent lack of support for loyal N95-3 buyers has left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth and this kind of treatment should not occur in the future if Nokia wants to reach U.S. customers.”

In my comment today, I asked Nokia if they could update their existing inventory of N95-3s so that no device is shipped with outdated software. Again, we’ll see what they have to say.

KEEP TALKING

…So that’s where this conversations stand as of today. I’m grateful to everyone who’s added their voice to this discussion. I’ve notified several Nokia and N95 user forums about this ongoing discussion on the Nokia blog, so hopefully even more folks will be chiming in.

In my opinion, so far Nokia does seem to want to improve its US service — and they can only do that if we’re telling them what we really need from them, to keep them on target and accountable

(Note I also posted a video overview of this situation on Seesmic.)

Picking up on my post yesterday, Univ. of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams challenged me (and her other readers) to translate my quick list of what j-schools should be teaching into a something more testable and measurable that could be translated into a curriculum.

Here’s my first shot at that:

• Content management systems (including blogging tools): First, I’d have the students run a group blog on a topic of their choosing for a year to get comfortable with the content and commenting apects of blogging. (A group blog is likely to get more activity and discussion than individual blogs.) This blog should be based on an expandable, customizable tool like WordPress. Then the students should be taught the basics of information architecture, and from that figure out how to expand or customize their blogs to deliver or integrate new kinds of content or services. This could be as simple as finding and installing WordPress plugins to add features, or integrating content from other places (such as Flickr or del.icio.us). The goal would be to get them to not just understand, but demonstrate that on their own they can envision, research, evaluate, and act upon options to do more with their content online. There’s a lot you can do without getting too geeky. They need to gain the confidence that many options are within their personal grasp — they don’t always need to get permission or beg someone else to do things for them.

There’s a lot more on my list, of course…

• Mobile tools and mobile media strategies. These students all have cell phones anyway. Require them to subscribe to mobile news and information services, and critique the quality of the service and user experience. Also, require them to create whatever kind of content their phones support (photos, video, audio, GPS data, even just SMS to Twitter, etc.) and post or stream it from their cell phones. Include participatory exercises based on SMS or MMS to include students who don’t have data plans on their phones. Free services like NowPublic, Flickr, Qik and CNN’s iReport could be especially helpful and even fun for your exercises.

• Social media. The point here is to help students learn a key tool for engaging communities, while also gaining experience with how influence works and information travels through social media. I suggest starting with whatever social media services most of the students are already using (like Facebook, MySpace, Ning, LinkedIn, YouTube, or Twitter) and explore both the one-to-one and group interaction options through exercises. For groups, it’s probably better to get them involved with existing, active groups on these services — rather than try to start a new group from scratch. Where possible, use both web-based and mobile options for these services. They should learn to use these tools for community outreach, story/issue research, and promotion of their work.

• Economics and business theory/models. Journalism students should be taking courses in the media business that offer the fundamentals of historical, current, and emerging media business models. They should learn what budgets and balance sheets look like, how grant funding and investment works, and how to evaluate the economic environment they’re operating in — including how it’s changing. Get them used to seeing the big picture and looking ahead. Practical skills could include analyzing the economic environment of the local community, spotting emerging trends that could offer journalistic or other media opportunities, and writing a basic business plan to capitalize on those opportunities.

• Business skills. This could involve evaluating and estimating revenue options from grants to investors to advertising to subscriptions to partnerships and more, as well as knowing what steps to take to pursue that funding. Example exercise: Develop a strategy and action plan for increasing online revenues for the campus or local daily paper — including calculation of expenses and revenues, and a timeline for implementation. In addition, they should be aware of what it takes to start and run a business — requirements for taxes, healthcare, getting SMS shortcodes, working with advertisers, etc. No part of the business that supports their journalism should be alien to them.

• Management skills. I’m envisioning this both from an entrepreneurial and organizational perspective. In all exercises, put the students in a decisionmaking role and guide them through learning how to manage time, resources, and people — whether employees, collaborators, or community members. For instance, if a class project is increasing online revenues for the campus paper, divide that mission into sub-tasks, assign someone to manage each part of that project, and require them to make decisions and delegate. Teach them how to use tools like Basecamp to coordinate team efforts. In fact, it might be a good idea to coordinate projects with other j-schools around the country or world, since increasingly in the media business project teams are widely distributed. The point is to encourage them to take charge of the process, not just to pigeonhole themselves as content creators.

• Marketing, advertising, and SEO. In addition to taking a marketing basics class oriented toward media products and services, j-students should learn the basics of search engine optimization — since findability generally translates into traffic, engagement, and revenue for most media ventures. Exercises can include learning to use Wordtracker to optimize headlines, stories, and metadata to increase both traffic and relevance; using Google Analytics to analyze traffic patterns to a news/info site (such as for the campus paper) and suggest strategies to boost traffic and engagement; developing and running Adwords campaigns (with a modest budget) to promote a class project; researching niche ad networks that might help support various types of coverage or beats, etc.

• Community engagement and management. This is perhaps one of the most marketable skills any journalist can have for the next several years or decades. The point is to get them used to creating news as part of a conversation, rather than simply as a one-way product for publication. It’s about promoting constructive public discourse through active engagement. Exercises could include participating in an active community forum; working as a volunteer moderator for an active forum where contentious topics arise; taking and active role in editing and discussing a Wikipedia page of interest; helping to coordinate (not just cover) local events like town hall meetings, conferences, or festivals; participating in or running local meetup groups, etc. These experiences tech how to handle conflict, foster consensus and diversity, produce events, and demonstrate respect and understanding for communities in order to build credibility. In this respect, working through local government, advocacy groups, social service agencies, neighborhood associations, and ethnic or religious groups could be as valuable (maybe more valuable) than working through journalistic or media organizations.

…I realize that my list sounds like a hell of a lot of stuff, but I feel like I’ve only scratched the surface in terms of what today’s journalists really need in order to take advantage of current opportunities, spot emerging opportunities, and take charge of their own destinies (rather than relying on a paternalistic news org to shelter them while they write, write, write).

I realize also that there may be resistance in journalism schools to much of what I propose, for reasons ranging from “we’re not a vocational school,” to IT staff resisting implementing the kinds of tools I’ve mentioned, to the need to integrate curricula more closely with business schools, to the tenured faculty who must teach at least some of these topics not knowing or caring much about them.

I’m not saying this would be easy. But I do think what I’ve outlined, in addition to teaching core journalism skills and values, is what today’s j-students really need to prepare for the kinds of careers they are most likely to have — and the kinds of media they can play a key role in inventing or developing.

Thoughts?

(And thanks, Mindy, for making me think this through more.)

Make no mistake: Online support forums, whether grassroots community efforts or run by organizations, generally do a hell of a lot of good. You can find support forums dealing with just about any issue or community. Personally I’ve participated in some support forums, and have generally benefited from them.

But there can be a dark side that managers and members of online support forums shouldn’t overlook: reinforcing negative triggers in mentally unstable people.

In fact, it’s possible that this dynamic this could have played a role in my own state last weekend, when Matthew Murray shot and killed four people in Arvada and Colorado springs, CO — and then finally killed himself after being downed by a church security guard…

Yesterday Denver NBC affiliate KUSA 9News reported that Murray apparently had displayed a disturbing pattern of behavior on online support and discussion forums run by the Association of Former Pentecostals.

The Denver Post reported that Murray’s final posting to that site, which occurred between the two shootings, plagiarized the final Web manifesto of Columbine killer Eric Harris. (Note: That post has since been removed from the forum, but other posts under Murray’s alleged screen names still exist.) According to 9News, a forum member warned the FBI at that point — sadly, too late to alter the deadly outcome.

Today, blogger Karoli offers serious food for thought about Murray’s forum posts. In Matthew Murray: Toxicity, Online Community, and Religion with a Twist (which I discovered via Twitter), she observes: “Some general observations about these [ex-Pentecostal] boards: The regular members seem to be pretty even-keeled, but definitely healing from a childhood of toxic religion in tightly-controlled family environments. They are not shy about criticizing the groups they escaped from, but in general, they seem to be dealing with their individual pasts in a forgiving and mature way.”

Karoli continues, “One of the limitations and dangers of communities like this is that there will be that one person who is determined not to get help and is actually triggered by participation in discussions about their past experiences, bitterness, and even abuse. [Murray] was one of these.

“Without question, his posts were painting a picture of someone contemplating a dark and violent end, and I’m certain that the leadership of this forum had done everything they knew how to do to help him. Still, even as he felt free to express himself in the safety of online interaction, the members were limited by the barriers erected by that same free space. Some members, trying to be kind and engage him, complimented him on his poetry, which encouraged him to write much more, and the more he wrote, the darker it became.

“This isn’t the first time I’ve seen situations like this online, but it is the first time that I’ve seen it come to this kind of an end. I hope it’s the last, but I am getting concerned about the possibility that participating (and venting) in a venue like the one Matthew used actually inadvertently contributed and gave him the outlet he needed to not seek help.

“…What, if anything, could the moderators or managers at the ex-Pentecostal forums do? Upon hearing the news of the shootings, they knew almost immediately that one of their own had likely been responsible. Could they have done anything else, preventatively? I don’t know.

“They were in a no-win situation. He wasn’t breaking the rules, and despite the encouragement, he was also receiving gentle suggestions to seek help, which he was rejecting. One possibility is to change the forum rules just a bit so that in situations where a member is clearly posting ongoing negative triggers, they are forced into a time-out. The problem with that, though, is that in Murray’s case, it would have felt like another rejection, similar to the one he received so painfully in the past.”

I agree with Karoli: I’m not sure there’s anything more the forum managers or members could or should have done in this case. As someone who’s active in several online forums, including some support forums, that saddens and frustrates me.

What do you think? What can we learn from this tragedy about heeding and acting on early warning signs in support or discussion forums, without undermining the strongly positive goals many of those communities achieve? I’m not pretending to have answers here, but I think this issue needs to be explored — especially with input from mental health professionals.

…On a related note, journalists, bloggers, and anyone should take special care: Don’t let this tragedy foster negative stereotypes of the “walkaway” community of former fundamentalist Christians.

A post yesterday to the x_fundies blog summed it up: “Almost undoubtedly this tragedy could have been prevented if the kid had been able to get appropriate mental help (unfortunately, this is not always an option without court intervention when the kid is being raised in an isolated dominionist household). Now that the fact he was on a walkaway forum has been publicized, there is the real chance we’re all going to be tarred as ‘anti-Christian’ trenchcoat killers.”

(NOTE: This post is an edited version of a post I made today to Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits blog. That version was specifically geared toward journalists and news organizations; this one is more general.)