It's easy to develop a bit of a siege mentality.
If you're on that side of the wall - here's a message of hope: The retreat is over. The offensive has begun.
Why so positive?
A crucial penny has dropped for me (and if you're a regular reader/contributor to this blog you may well have seen me edging towards it in recent posts, before I worked it out for myself...)
It is this: There is NO business (model) in the world of We Species we now inhabit (see Alan Moore's work at Communities Dominate Brands) which does not benefit from the application of the ideas of We Media.
If all this sounds a little too much like buzzwords gone mad, let me explain.
Not only does my definition of what a Media Brand now is (ie a platform for a community of shared interests) apply to what we think of traditional media plays, it is also equally essential for any business model - full stop.
So the ideas encapsulated in this post 'Does a straightforward transaction site need a social play?' and in this 'A new definition of media brands'. can, indeed MUST, apply to any wannabe business model in this post mass-media/industrial age.
No longer are traditional media companies in retreat - now I see media companies as uniquely positioned to take advantage of the new way of doing business which is emerging from our new community dominated ecology.
In 'A new definition of media brands' I argued:
- A media brand is a platform for a community with shared interests.
- Focused on the interests of this community, we should aggregate content and offer services.
- Services are best delivered at the point they are needed – and that is always, always mobile!
Media companies (and I am deliberately not distinguishing between new media (eg google) and traditional media (eg emap) because I think both have advantages) are uniquely well placed to benefit from the cultural shift towards community (evidenced by social networking etc).
Those with expertise in specialist niches may well be the best positioned of all (and yes, I have to declare an interest here - I am employed by a company with exactly that expertise). They are best suited to activating and engaging the long tail.
Why?
1. New media companies are brilliant at connecting (socialising) us digitally, traditional media companies have big audiences to activate. Traditional media companies have tons of insight to help identify the new business opportunities (by which I mean opportunities to help build and join with co-creating communities).
2. Combine this with our experience in building communities (not particularly connected ones in the case of traditional media, but communities none-the-less) and you have a position of significant advantage in the age of constantly-connected communities.
In a new economy dominated by social consumers (prosumers) the niche global community platform creators hold the cards.
As always your views, reactions and suggestions are welcome. Please share below.
I've was struck by a thought on this topic recently. Witnessing how MySpace is now going to introduce copyright controls on users' content, I surmised that the more a single social network administrator grows, the more responsibility it will be forced to take on. Which lead me to think some more...
ReplyDeleteThe attraction of these networks seems to be twofold: 1) it allows you to connect with people on the basis of your interests rather than geography 2) it is exclusive (bear with me here)
Having been a user of Bebo from quite early on, I witnessed a change in how people reacted to it. At first my friends and I were very enthusiastic about it and spent lots of time personalising our profiles etc. Later, we became embarrassed by our connection to it, not because it had become any more of a waste of time, but because it was too mainstream.
I would surmise as a result that the big social networks will fall in the near future. Smaller, possibly open source social networks will offer users more freedom in how they personalise their profile page, and will be infinitely cooler than something owned by Rupert Murdoch.