Permeating the recent Webcom 2009 event was the discomfort and fear of mainstream media losing ground to the rise of social media.
The simple reality that information consumption is migrating into a Web dialogue leaves the mainstream media having to compete with what they label as unverified content, and thus accordingly, untrustworthy information. Again, a major perception shift from an industry that has a difficult time distinguishing between unverified written expressions and the wisdom of crowd. I often heard from many traditional media people attending such comments as: “How can people consume such rubbish and unverifiable comments?” “We are dedicated to verifying and delivering quality content that is far more reliable!”.
Formal content providers truly believe that without their controlled content people will have a distorted view of what matters and believe opinions over facts. From their perspective they are absolutely right! If people accept social media information as validated truth, we would have... well, isn’t this what we already have? The simple fact that opinions and discussions are transposed from the oral to the written form does not mean that it changes much regarding the risk of people being misinformed. People distort, fabricate and adopt their own points of view according to their social networks, whether it be physical or the Web. The battle is not one of formal versus informal, but one where formal content providers need to listen and engage in the dialogue.
I was also amused when I heard that mainstream media and large companies were questioning the value of social media and its content. These companies and traditional media spend fortunes on market trend analysis with voodoo-like rearview mirror reporting that only serves to give them an impact appreciation for what they did in order to improve the next campaign. The amusing part is that they have traditionally done this to measure opinions and perceptions to best attract customers, yet today they are worried about the volume of content created by the same people they have been trying to mind-probe through inference investigation. Can someone pinch me here?
The perception that has to change is not the one of the people (it is only a transposition for them), it is the one of the media companies who are far more feudal than the people, as they fear a loss of power. I believe that Thomas W. Malone’s 2004 The Future of Work a great tome on the transformation of business, is more meaningful today in the light of the traditional media companies’ challenge. But are traditional media companies capable of distributed deliberation and content creation with the emerging wisdom of crowds?
The ability to have a real-time written communication has changed the concept of readers and audiences. It is now a dialogue! And from that basis the media industry is transformed forever. Traditional media needs to rethink its relationship with its customers (yes customers as they are no longer passive). They need to focus on their core value of reliable information and take it to a new level that will preserve their integrity as their assumptions regarding the information life-cycles and distribution are changing. Some will understand that their business operating processes are the enemy and that they must create new ones.
Many media companies are becoming consumed by finding ways to become social destinations themselves than thinking about their core business value proposition and processes. These companies are taking the risk of becoming followers in the media revolution instead of becoming the leaders and champions of valued and verified information. In my opinion they are making a mistake as they are driven by following to catch-up instead of innovating and managing their own transformation.
See the post by my colleague Bill Ives that appeared here this Monday on What killed the Rocky Mountain News for an example of a mainstream news company that did not successfully handle the rise of social media. In this session the former Editor, John Temple, said that newspapers now need to spend more time on innovation and not simply work on trying to get more revenue for online versions of what they have always done.
Post script: The Seattle Times recently took the innovative step of inviting editors from some neighborhood blogs to question mayoral candidates for a town hall-style debate organized by the newspaper and its news partner, KING-TV. Here is a good example of creative use of soical media with traditional media.
Interesting to see what the Technorati 2009 blogosphere report say on this topic. "As the concepts of blogging and mainstream media continue to converge, it’s not surprising that there is quite a bit of overlap between the two entities. Despite being perceived by some as enemies of the traditional media, bloggers actually carry a journalistic pedigree. 35 percent of all respondents have worked within the traditional media as a writer, reporter, producer, or on-air personality. By way of contrast, consider that less than 1% of the US labor force was employed as a journalist in 2006. Monthly magazines and daily newspapers are the best-represented types of media outlets among those bloggers who have worked in the traditional media, with radio a strong third. And the true overlap reveals itself in the 27 percent of respondents who both blog and work in traditional media."
It goes on to say, "Despite “the sky is falling” rhetoric, respondents do not regard the rise of online media and blogging as the death knell for newspapers or other traditional media. Bloggers do agree their medium is ascendant and 69% agree that blogs are getting taken more seriously as information sources. At the same time, only 35% of this audience gets its news and information from blogs more than from other media sources now, and only 31% believe that newspapers will not be able to survive in the next ten years."
Posted by: Bill Ives | 10/28/2009 at 04:41 PM