Design to Thrive's chapter on renumeration laid out a series of steps for an online community to create an experience that will encourage users to keep coming back. I really enjoyed reading about the different ways to accomplish renumeration on a site, because at first introduction to the meaning of the term, it did, as Howard notes, seem a little like common sense. I thought all one had to do was think of  a create way for members to feel included or rewarded in some way for their time spent. However, all of the ways (12) in which Howard suggests that renumeration should be carried out, makes it more clear as to why so few sites succeed with regards to this goal. His "checklist of techniques" is as follows: 

1. make the text editor fun with emoticons

2. use a subscription application form

3. mentors teach

4. seed the discussion

5. use stars to show membership contribution levels

6. rank the value of members' messages

7. remove the fear factor by provided examples of how to participate

8. create a safe environment by sending out "tickle" messages

9. create a regular event

10. don't automatically archive

11. discourage attempts to send conversations to other blogs, websites, or discussion groups

12. ban redistribution servers and cross-postings

Of these, I was most surprised by the suggestion to make the text editor fun. It makes sense along with Howard's example of the BGCA community, but out of context, it was hard for me to imagine that the inclusion of emoticons would make that big of a difference in encouraging member involvement. The technique that seems most obvious to me, on the other hand, was number nine — create a regular event. It makes sense that in order for users to feel the experience on a site is worthwhile, they should have a regulated activity on the site, or consistent reason, or event, for returning there.

Chapter 8 of Howard's Design to Thrive brings up a good point about the inherent nature of technology and social networks as ever-changing and transforming, and what this means for the future. He compares the current inflated focus on social media to the dot com bubble at the start of the millennium and mentions that a similar "social network apocalypse" could be around the corner. This is something I've thought a lot about as a social media user. On the one hand, more and more aspects of daily life are integrating social media tools as a means to make everything "easier", more accessible, more intuitive, etc. I can share Spotify music playlists with friends on Facebook, which they can quickly adopt and take with them on the go in a matter of seconds — the modern day version of recording a song off the radio onto your 8-track tape and handing it to your buddy at school on Monday. In this example, it's hard to see how the popularity or reliance on social networking would waiver anytime soon. However, on this topic, I also think about the overwhelming nature of the industry and how too much integration or too much involvement can actually turn someone off from the technologies altogether. Friends are often complaining about the lack of privacy on today's social networking sites and the internet in general. The fact that you can search someone's name and find out not only where they live, their age, etc., but you can find out who their friends are, what they're eating for dinner, and what stores they shop at. In this sense, it's easy to understand the potential for the whole concept to just implode on itself in a matter of years. Furthermore, the knowledge that these technologies are constantly developing and changing makes it hard to ignore the possibility that social networks could soon be a thing of the past. I can imagine now saying to my kids, "When I was your age, we had to log in with a username and password that we typed into a keyboard...". It seems like the possibilities are endless for future ways that humans will interact with one another, as as Howard notes, while technology changes rapidly, people don't — kind of a scary thought.

Chapter 6 of Heath's Made to Stick introduced the idea that the process for great ideas to "stick" is much more than an empirical, step-by-step formula to be completed by any one with the motivation.  Rather, one of the most vital aspects of a successful idea is the ability to make a connection with the audience on different levels, especially an emotional one.  Through real-life examples and stories, Heath is able to illustrate the value of making this connection by making us (the reader) care.  He explains that like stories, valuable ideas provide simulation and inspiration, which instigate action, and are understood as credible as well as emotional.  Essentially, the more someone cares about your story, the more likely it is to stick and the more likely people are to take actions aligned with progressing your idea into a successful reality.

Heath also lays out the acronym, SUCCES, as a checklist in determining an idea's potential.  He names the following qualities as necessary: simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and story.  Again, these characteristics help facilitate that connection with the audience that allows them to simulate the experience and be inspired to care and take action.

I think these explanations for what makes an idea great can be somewhat sub-conscious for the participant; for example, when I go to a social media website that I enjoy, it isn't because I'm thinking to myself, "wow, this site is so simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, and emotional".  However, this does help explain more why certain social media sites do not work and do not appeal to me.  Sometimes I visit a site and for no particular reason, it doesn't "stick" with me; now that I understand what exactly makes a great idea, I can see that these "bad" sites aren't making a connection with me, they aren't pulling me in emotionally.

I found Howard's layout of why investing in social networks and online communities is valuable to be most interesting in chapter three.  Specifically, I really enjoyed the point that these networks can be used to locate demand for specific products and help develop new ideas straight from the mouth of the consumer.  Howard describes this as "identifying customer needs and new product opportunities".  The fact that this process, if done the traditional way, costs large sums of time and money resonated with me because while there may be some initial resistance to the current technological movement, the proof stands in the pudding when you look at money. Virtually anyone, with a little know-how, can begin to develop their brand on the internet at little to no cost, and that, to me, is amazing.  A current manifestation of this growing connection between social media and marketing that comes to mind is the recent Lays potato chip campaign.  Named the "Lays Flavor Contest", the company is reaching out via online platforms to get new flavor ideas for future production.  Not only does this method create a friendly competition amongst consumers, but it increases buzz about Lays, makes the consumer feel involved —like they have a "choice"—, and undoubtedly will boost sales for the company, all while allowing them the feedback they need to make their product better.  While this contest seems light-hearted and creative, it's also surely reducing the cost of any additional research Lays would normally conduct to get these same results.
Howard's other analysis of the reasons to invest include: enhancing intellectual capital, increasing creativity and cross-fertilization, improving decision-making processes with epistemic communities, preserving institutional knowledge, providing a higher quality interaction with your organization, improving retention and loyalty, reducing training and support costs, reducing travel costs and addressing problems quicker, and flattening organizational hierarchies.  Most of these make sense to me, except the point that online communities provide a quality interaction within the organization.  Howard suggests that these communities provide a means for employees to understand decision making and managers on a more personal level. While I can see this being the case with large companies whose employees wouldn't normally have wide open lines of communication, it seems like it could potentially be counter-productive within smaller organizations. Ideally, you would want employees and managers to have that face-to-face interaction and communication to keep relationships positive.  Throwing everyone into a computer community may only swell the "gossip mongering" instead of putting a "human face on decisions".