In the past week or two, the notion of unexpected rewards (think: unanticipated acknowledgment of positive behavior) has come up in two entirely different conversations. But in both instances, the value of rewarding people out-of-the-blue facilitates the same thing - a spirit of goodwill which fosters further positive behavior.

In one context, I was in a discussion around ways to incent an online community in a social website. Of course, there are numerous rewards & recognition systems in place at various communities, often with deliberate actions and points accumulated which trigger specific compensation for participating in those communities. And those structured incentives work very well if executed correctly. But what can also work in addition to formal schemes are random acts of apparent generosity. Selecting top contributors and making a small gesture (sending something like a small mug/t-shirt/stick promotional item, or even as inconsequential as a personal email from an employee) can really encourage those users further. It makes online community members feel like they’re part of something larger and that their contributions are truly being recognized. Based upon those feelings, users usually then contribute even more than would even given the structured incentive in place. It’s amazing to see how much this actually works.

Similarly, in addition to formal compensation of employees in a startup, unexpected recognition of hard work and positive contributions do wonders. Small gestures from managers of a company that are unexpected can really boost moral in a place that sometime appears to be going every which way some days. Like with all gifts, it’s the thought and gesture that counts, not the reward itself. This situation is little more delicate, however, as the gesture really needs to be perceived as a sincere one. But if done in an authentic manner, far from formal compensation structure and conversations, the effects are often very beneficial for all parties involved.

Real recognition – that knowing that others’ notice and appreciate a particular set of actions – is a valuable intrinsic quality that cuts across many situations. Those little rewards can mean a whole lot, especially when people aren’t looking for them.

While I have already privately shared the news with a few, I am pleased to communicate on my blog that I recently joined the venture capital firm Venrock as a Vice President.

This is a very exciting event for me, as this new role brings a new set of opportunities, in addition to allowing me to leverage my current strengths and interests. I will be based in the Cambridge office with Mike Tyrrell, and am looking forward to working with him and the rest of the Venrock team across all of the offices (New York, Menlo Park, and Israel). My focus will continue to be on early-stage investments in the digital media sector (primarily focused on internet and mobile spaces), working with entrepreneurs to start and build successful companies. And as part of that practice, I will continue to blog here at GenuineVC and lead the Web Innovators Group based in Boston.

In exploring the possibility of joining Venrock with the partners here, I was particularly struck by one theme which ran through all of our conversations: the importance of relationships. It became clear that I would fit into a firm which lives up to its heritage - with everyone valuing with paramount respect the relationships which they have with entrepreneurs, with investors, with the community, and with others within the firm. It is that team of investment professionals which I wanted to become a part, as my belief is that the fundamental driver of success in the venture capital industry is these strong connections and bonds.

True to that note, during my past couple years at Masthead Venture Partners, I fostered a number of relationships, including both the principals of that firm and the entrepreneurs who we invested. And while there is no longer a formal affiliation, the foundation on which these were built remains solid and will continue to do so.

A few weeks ago, Venrock announced that it raised $600M for investment in early stage startups across a diverse set of sectors (biotechnology, energy and nanotech, healthcare IT, medical devices, and digital media). I am excited to become a team member at the firm investing this capital in the digital media space, building new relationships and strengthening existing ones.

Interesting figures out of researcher firm PQ Media this month on the size and growth of "alternative out-of-home" media, which includes video advertising networks and screens in theatres, offices, stores, in-transit, and other digital billboard locations. According to their research, the overall category grew 27% to $1.67B in 2006. Take those figures (which assumingly lump in other miscellaneous items) with a grain of salt, but there’s no denying that the proliferation of digital signage with advertising messages is happening.

Patrick Quinn of PQ Media said, "Ironically, the trends impeding traditional media — consumer fragmentation and control, advertising accountability and the emergence of digital technology — are the very catalysts stimulating the tremendous growth in alternative out-of-home advertising." Much of the technology press attention on the digital media space (both mainstream and blog) has covered consumers’ consumption inside the home (web, digital audio and video) or on their own devices when they leave the home. Yet the availability of digital media has the opportunity to spread to the entire real estate of public life.

Is there a day in the future when property owners with public space, like shopping malls, become media companies focusing on selling not just physical store inventory but also ad inventory? It’s already slipping into the consciousness of these groups; for example, Simon Property Group annual report mentions their providing digital programming in their annual report with "very encouraging" initial response.

But what does this mean? Some people like John Blossom of Shore Communications have argued that media companies have become desensitized to the idea of public space, believing that any and all space is open for media or advertising. Is this really true? Next time you walk outside in public, consider the fact that there’s visual real estate inventory available wherever you look. But whether that perspective is beneficial for society is definitely an issue. Judith Perrolle, a professor of sociology at Northeastern Univ., has called coined the phrase "solid state spam" to label unwanted and unwelcome messages appearing in a public area, when marketers fail to consider or respect the community’s views of space.

But isn’t the notion of the social media revolution that media is supposed to accommodate consumers not violate norms? Don’t consumers have the ability to dictate the here, what, where, when, and why they consume media? Shouldn’t this notion extend to the public space as well?

On Thursday, the Taxi and Limousine Commission of New York approved a plan to install touch-screen monitors in their entire fleet of taxis. These screens will allow riders to pay by credit card, check on news stories, map out where the cab is going and find information about eateries and bars. To me, this example use of a public space for digital screen media seems more than appropriate – it delivers contextually relevant content to people who need it at that moment, and the advertising messages which follow are (presumably) relevant.

As outdoor digital signage continues to proliferate, we’re going to need some public discourse to reach a consensus about what is acceptable public real estate for these media. There are clear benefits – advertisers and consumers alike – for appropriate outdoor digital media as sources of useful information, and the business opportunities to serve this growing market are perhaps under appreciated.

(Thanks to Greg Peverill-Conti of Weber Shandwick who has helped me think about these topic over the past couple of weeks.)

I always like to know what smart, tech types include in their daily reading. Yesterday, I learned that a very successful entrepreneur (and good friend of mine) named Chris Dixon put up a web site with links to a few dozen of his favorite blogs and websites, and this afternoon I finally got around to studying the list. I have been particularly curious to know what Chris reads because he always

Anyone who's worked with venture capitalists knows that they have a language of their own -- and for the most part it's quite fun. Terms like "burn rate", "first-mover advantage", "monetization" and "defensibility" never get old. But I've noticed that many VCs I respect are using the term "unfair advantage" to simply describe an advantage. Jeremy Liew describes having the best news coverage as an "unfair advantage". Susan Wu calls having a community and leveraging network effects an (outdated) "unfair advantage".

The social news site Digg (whose CEO is a past Venture Voice guest) recently had a user revolt after it gave in to the demand of a cease and desist letter and blocked a posting. The users voted stories up to the main page of Digg that criticized Digg. It was viewed as a big negative at the time, and journalists are still reveling in the site's supposed hardship with headlines like Digg Flap Exposes Cracks.