Andrew Keen’s head – and the shift from institutions to processes

A recent blog post by Andrew Keen has finally prompted me to write a post dedicated to the idea that Big Thing in social media is the shift from institutions to processes as a source of trusted information.  I have referred to this many times in previous posts, but when I get to say “as I have said many times before” I realise I haven’t actually got one place purely dedicated to the saying of it.  Well no more.

Also, the fact that Andrew Keen, of all people, has identified what he calls the emergence of a new inchoate discource and is writing a post about media streams and agreeing with the likes of Clay Shirky about the essential ‘differentness’ of what may replace traditional media has also shown it is time to pull my finger out on this one. Continue reading

#LRNY – I am an ‘assclown’ and a stalker!

Just when I thought the dust had settled on this one, up popped a tweet to me from someone called Jess Elliot.  This said:

@RichardStacy Seriously Dick, you’re a one trick pony, can’t u come-up with anything else other than talking about #LRNY? You’re so boring.

The tone of this had the ring of some familiarity about it given previous tweets and blog comments from people that seemed to be interestingly close to the agency involved in the #LRNY campaign.

It was also a little at odds from comments such as this from Corrine Weisgerber, Assistant Professor of Communication at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, who has done an excellent presentation on usage of Twitter.  She said:

@RichardStacy Somehow I overlooked your tweet. Great post on #LRNY. I agree:  not authentic & executed with a traditional marketing mindset

So, I wondered who Jess Elliot might be Continue reading

Nik Gowing on crises and social media

Here is some worthwhile weekend reading.  It is a report by the broadcast journalist, Nik Gowing, published this week by Oxford University’s Reuter’s Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Entitled “Skyful of Lies and Black Swans” it looks at how technological changes and the emergence of what he calls ‘information doers’ (essentially social media) is changing the balance of power between institutions and individuals, with this shift being most evident at moments of crisis.

The paper tends to focus on government and politics in terms of the examples it highlights, rather than corporations and boardrooms.  It is also more on the observational and assertive side of things and rather light on analysis, in terms of really exposing the key new dynamics of the social media space.  However, this is to be expected given that Gowing is a journalist, not an analyst or academic.

I also sense that Gowing himself has not fully grasped the implications of the social media revolution, seeing it as simply an evolution of technology rather than recognising the fundamental breakdown in the relationship between content and distribution that social media represents.  He identifies the effects, but not yet fully appreciates the cause.  He recognises instances of institutional impotence, but not the fundamental shift from institutions to processes inherent in social media.

It is also a shame that the report itself is not more social media optimised – Gowing doesn’t appear to be available to discuss this on twitter, or have a blog for example and there are no links embedded in the pdf.  The opportunity to use this to create a conversation has clearly not been identified! (Update: he is on twitter @NikGowing but not exactly active)

However, minor gripes aside, the real value in this paper is the force with which it makes the point about the level of institutional denial (in governments and boardrooms) about what is happening, together with an identification of the fact that vastly increased speed of response is what crisis management is now all about.  Gowing calls this the Tyranny of the Time Line.

Read it and think about your own crisis management preparation and/or level of institutional denial.

Free content is not the issue – its free distribution

There has been a lot of chatter recently about the issue of  newspapers charging for their on-line content – driven by Rupert Murdoch’s speculation that this is what he, and the industry is going to have to do very shortly.

However, the issue is not free content.  What is killing traditional news providers is free distribution.

The price that Murdoch et al have to charge for their content is driven by the fact that their organisations are chained to expensive distribution models.  Organisations that don’t have that ball and chain can afford to give their content away because their costs are so much lower they can cover these via advertising alone. Continue reading

The sanctity of publication

Thanks to Antony Mayfield (@amayfield) for drawing my attention to a couple of recent  articles.  It has prompted me to finally post on something that has been lurking  in the back of my mind for a year or more – this thing I call the sanctity of publication.

Both articles – one a piece in the Daily Mail and the other a opinion piece by Seth Finkelstein in the Guardian – come from very different people and places but both are essentially the same: cries of indignation from people and/or institutions who see their position as ‘sanctified’ oracles being undermined by the great unwashed. Continue reading

#LRNY – some further “unpleasantness”

As a further addendum to the #LRNY issue it is interesting to see another example of the aggressive opposition to the idea that anyone should examine and critique the initiative.

Chris Baccus, who actually works for Wunderman in their Detroit office, wrote a post largely based around my initial analysis and the Twitter tiff – Twiff he called it – it generated.  It was a good post and invited people to add their own opinion on his blog – which I did, drawing his attention to the more detailed summary post that sought to draw some lessons from the exercise.  Then a Mr Anonymous (ah the great Mr Anonymous) weighed in with this.  Continue reading

Three lessons from #LRNY

As you can see from the previous two posts (and also if you check-out the #LRNY tag) the recent Land Rover hashtag campaign has caught my attention.  Initially I thought it was a very good idea – I have been supporting the concept of what I call TagSpaces for a while – but on closer investigation the campaign turns out to be a bit of a disappointment.

I don’t want to beat-up on Wunderman, the agency responsible, or especially Land Rover because I think they deserve congratulation for having the courage to experiment with this sort of thing.  However, I think there are some very valuable lessons that can be learnt – and it is this I would like to focus on. Continue reading

More thoughts on #LRNY – it didn’t work

Having now had a closer look at the #LRNY tag, its clear that the thing hasn’t really worked.  The reason is that Land Rover have failed to notice that a successful conversation has two mandatories – an ability to listen and an ability to speak.  Land Rover is doing neither – and its paid tweeters are doing nothing more than say “wow- aren’t Land Rovers really nice, please look at this website”. Continue reading

#LRNY – Land Rover creating a TagSpace

Some time back I wrote a piece about the concept of TagSpace and its importance as a new dimension is social media. Well here is the practice in action.  Land Rover in the US created a TagSpace – #LRNY – to talk about their new model as well as then paying Tweeters with big followings to promote this.  The TagSpace concept is good – although they haven’t really used it to drive real two-way conversation.  Paying Tweeters is less clever – but given this idea comes from a traditional agency its hardly surprising.

Expect more of the same.

Book burying – the new book burning?

Whatever your take on the recent #amazonfail controversy – it does suggest, as this article implies in its concluding paragraph that book burying (or in fact any form of content supression) could be the new book burning. Given that tagging in it various forms is becoming the principal method of information retrieval, this episode shows the importance of being alive to ways in which this process can be manipulated – wittingly or otherwise. Continue reading