Conversations Matter

I'm sitting at the Society for New Communications Research symposium (with Mendo) listening to Paul Gillin's keynote. He's discussing how the new model of influence and publishing created by blogs and other social media is threatening to destroy the newspaper industry. One of the underlying tenets to this is that the economics of new media (free content, easy/fast syndication and small staffs) make it impossible for traditional publishers to compete.

If things continue the way they are now, there's little question that Paul is right. But the thought occurs to me that at some point, everybody likes to get paid. And AdSense can only take you so far. Aren't bloggers human? Isn't the natural inclination for the more popular bloggers or sites (let's say Scoble or Digg) to say "Hey, I'm really popular. I've got a loyal community and high traffic. Surely, a nominal monthly subscription fee wouldn't chase too many of them away."

This line of thinking obviously runs counter to the nature of social media. But it is directly in line with human nature. This makes the social media/citizen journalist/consumer-driven marketing model we know today unsustainable.

How will it need to change to address the fact that some individuals are more equal than others?

1. For all the talk/perception that social media is the stuff of the sub-25 consumer set, the room is full of more mature folks from professional and academic backgrounds. Granted, those are the types you'd expect at anything called a symposium, but it's telling nonetheless.

2. Apparently, the social media uniform involves a jacket, no tie (preferably with jeans)!

sncr

Nick Carr digs into Google CEO Eric Schmidt's assertions (via a contributed article to the Economist) that 2007 will be the year open internet standards "will sweep aside the proprietary protocols promoted by individual companies striving for technical monopoly. Today’s desktop software will be overtaken by internet-based services that enable users to choose the document formats, search tools and editing capability that best suit their needs."

Carr doesn't so much question the "if" of Schmidt's assertion, but rather whether the "when" is correct. He wonders if "Schmidt allowed confidence to become overconfidence."

With Google shares reaching 500 bucks, the topic of whether of not the company is being set up (or setting itself up) for a massive fall is top of mind.

Personally, I'd be scared to death to bet on any $500/share stock (if I could even afford to!). There are some fundamentals behind that (for example, growth, while still strong, is slowing period-over-period). But more importantanly, the market - while rational overall and over the long term - is scarily irrational at any given point in time. All it will take is one slight misstep for all the Google goodwill to evaporate.

That said, GOOG is one of the most important companies on the planet and that is not going to change (barring an Enron-like debacle), regardless of how long it remains a stock market darling. So, Schmidt's prediction, while bold, are hardly foolhearty. He is smart to take his shots (yes, even at Microsoft) from a position of strenght. At best, he creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. At worst, he is wrong about the timing. When has a botched prediction ever really hurt anyone?

Even if Schmidt's Economist article reveals a bit of hubris, Google's relatively unique position in the market means the benefits far outweigh the risks.

(On a total aside for my fellow flacks...a contributed article in the Economist? Talk about the hit of a career! :-) )

Micro Persuation today talks about the untapped potential of Second Life for business. But I'm not there yet (see my comment to Steve's post).

UPDATE: Looks like a lot of others agree.

Mike Manuel highlights an interesting challenge for agencies - how do we remain relevant without overextending ourselves?

The core of Mike's point is valid. Trying to be all things to all people is a recipe for disaster. The challenge, however, is that 5 different companies/people might call the same set of tactics or programs different things (PR, corporate communications, marketing, marketing communications, etc.)

Rather than getting wrapped up in an unresolvable semantic (er, I mean, "positioning") discussion, agencies need to focus on articulating the business benefit of what they do for clients. This sets the context for any expansion of the agency's offerings/programs/tactics. If a new arrow in the quiver helps achieve the objectives laid out with clients, by all means it should be considered if you can execute it effectively.

This focus should make the labels far less relevant.