buzzmachine
Something has been bothering me since Adam Curry talked about media vs. technology on the Gillmor Gang.
And I’m also left wondering why Jason Calacanis pumps up AdSense and yet gets labeled a “media guy”, or even calls himself such.
I think it’s a dis-credit to himself. He’s much more than that.
He’s an “Attention” guy.
You see, media by it’s very nature can be disintermediated, and I don’t think any strategy that could fall prey to that is a good one.
Is Google a media company?
No.
Media companies aggregate content makers and act as mediaries between the advertisers and the media consumers. (sorry to Doc, i don’t like the word consumer either)
Google is doing more than that.
They are an Attention clearing house.
It’s what Jason might call an enabler, and it’s why the successful new companies we adore all seem to be doing just that. (del.icio.us, grazr, edgio, top ten sources etc.)
They are enabling an attention transaction to occur. Think eBay or Craigslist. OPML, not HTML. Tom Morris, not Morris, the Cat.
There is no enabling happening here, just intermediation.
Jason’s latest venture is about enablement, so I think he’s on the right track. Paying people doesn’t change that, as long as a service is open.
Attention enablers can’t be disintermediated. They can be replaced, but not disintermediated.
I don’t come from the software industry. I much more relate to what Dave Winer calls a himself, a “media hacker”. And that’s what he calls Scoble too.
It’s not really about technology. That is a means, not an end.
Technology itself can be disintermediated or commodified. Soon, we will plug into technology like we do into electrical outlets. It’s happening now.
So I say that the winning companies are not media companies or technology companies, but Attention companies.
And if PodShow is a media company, it may succeed in the short run. But to last and grow, it will have to transform to an Attention company. So will Tribune, New York Times, Microsoft, Podosphere.com and the whole lot.
I’m hoping part two of the latest Gillmor Gang will prove more interesting.
If you remember the Jason and the Argonauts tale, you might know how Jason succeeded in conquest over the Seed men by casting a stone at one, who thought it was his neighbor, and letting them all kill each other.
That’s what Steve Gillmor seems to do by letting the fellas discuss the importance of Google algorithms and whether site owners can get a cut by having search engines bid for their site search.
If Steve would have put the “knockoff” Cheerios down for a sec I know what he would have said.
It’s not whether Google’s algorithms hold up, it’s whether they can garner more stock in the conversation with all their attention data.
The winners of the future are not the best technologies. We’ll all be able to plug into those the same way we plug into an electrical outlet.
The winners are the services which add value to the conversations happening throughout distributed web networks.
These networks and conversations are fluid and changing constantly in response to our gestures.
Those who don’t get this are either thinking too hard or just not enough.
In a similar way that facial and hand gestures are a meaningful supplement to spoken conversations, the gestures which we talk about with attention are the metadata of the conversations happening on the web.
That equates to economic power because markets are conversations.
I agree with Jason Calacanis that many in the SEO business are trying to game this system, but I disagree when he says the system works. People are trying to game the system because it does not work. It just works better than the previous systems.
I can prove it Jason. I’ll write a better piece on a new cell phone than Engadget and see which shows up higher on Google.
No. Those dynamics are only part of the game.
The richer system envelops us with answers using our data and our network’s data in a chameleon like fashion, never static like Google. That’s child’s play.
Jason(Argonaut) succeeded in getting the Golden Fleece but was fickle and left Medea for another Princess.
Likewise, in the shorter term companies may succeed by amassing link attention.
The true winners won’t be seeking the Golden Fleece at all. They will be removing the barriers and letting the crystal waters flow in, filtered and clean, Pure Conversation.
More talk from Jeff Jarvis about an Open Ad Marketplace. You know I’m for it. But let me try to distill a similar idea that has been floating around here lately.
Closed-source algorithms for Attention filtering are the greatest danger facing information consumption over the coming years. They are nearly tantamount to the closed distribution system afforded by printing press ownership.
I will also mention to my OPML friends: Open systems built upon similar concepts as the Dave Winer SYO are the first step toward freeing the public from a future where “Attention control” can spread.
One last note: If Dave Winer is right and the RSS feed is the advertisement, then we make no distinction between commercial and non-commercial content. In such a case, Steve Gillmor’s Gesture Bank data along with an open-source filtering algorithm(s), should do the job.
I work for Tribune. I really see some positive changes happening in the Interactive product development area. For the first time since Tribune acquired Times Mirror, my former employer, I ‘m actually seeing some bright minds and positive movement in the online space. Still a ways to go.
That said, it still amazes me how clueless many mid-level managers in newspaper industry are as far as web strategy.
The main confusion comes from one concept that’s hard to grasp, though it seems simple once you’ve understood it.
We are not in the news business.
What?
Yes.
We never were.
The value of owning a press was the distribution channel it created.
That valuable channel is not available online and the value of bundled original content is not enough to float a long term business, however good that content is.
In fact, even PR firms are no longer beholden to us.
What’s left?
I’m not sure, but that old value is gone. We need a new way to contribute to new distribution channel, the conversation marketplace.
It seems that the Newspaper industry is constantly singing that old sixties tune.
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago?
When will they ever learn. . .
Have we learned nothing from the music business?
Phillipe Janet, an online executive with French newspaper Les Echos, said internet aggregators should be prevented from “stealing” content and revenues from newspapers.
As far as I understand, stealing content is still covered under the existing copyright laws.
Stealing revenue has never been a crime, except at gunpoint.
Aggregating information for easy retrieval is fair use according to many judicial systems, at least so far.
That just about covers business use on the web.
As far as individuals that share content? Again I refer you to the RIAA.
Jeff Jarvis points out some other humorous quotes.
Update: I see the hand on the Old Media Doomsday Clock ticking . . .
Jeff? C’mon! Jarvis gets it right so often that it becomes a worthwhile link for me when I disagree.
What a conclusion he comes to when he says a study finds,
TV is not bad for kids
First of all, few have ever said TV was all bad, but that “too much” TV could be bad.
Second, the study shows that TV was not bad for student’s test scores. Does this mean TV is not bad for you?
Suppose the test scores are up and so is the number of pounds overweight from a sedentary lifestyle.
Suppose the test scores are up but so is violent crime.
There is more to life than test scores.
In all fairness, it is a blog post and not an essay, so perhaps he was generalizing and being succinct, realizing that we understood these caveats.
That said, I probably agree. I don’t think TV is bad. Newspapers on the other hand. . .
Gotta go, F-Troop is on.
Update: I was just wondering if a day will come when they say “too much RSS may be bad for you.”
I write about a lot of things here, but the original concept of this blog was to follow the disintermediation process to it’s furthest conclusions, which is that “all transactions will eventually be person to person”, a world of pure conversation and pure competition. I’m sure you’ve read ClueTrain as well here
I was revisiting that thought when I read Jeff Jarvis mentioning that Craigslist is just as likely to get disintermediated as the Old Media it is ousting from the transaction.
This will occur with completely distributed services working with open protocols. Check out structured blogging for a start in that direction.
Jeff says,
I’ve long argued that Craigslist and Monster, et al, will, in turn, be overtaken by distributed models that no longer require us to use centralized marketplaces.
So, does this mean that companies in future do not exist in the sense that they do now . Will every person be their own company and collaboration on larger projects merely be tightly coupled partnerships?
I think so.
Perhaps the Old Media Doomsday Clock could be the Old Business Doomsday Clock
And maybe that is what Dave Winer is saying when he says that RSS is the ad, because the only thing to advertise in the future is ourselves.
And maybe that is what Steve Gillmor is saying when he says that Advertising is built upon the Attention platform. We won’t take out ads in the future, we will vie for others Attention.
And despite Alex Barnett thinking this is extreme, this will be a way of life, since business and personal will have merged to become “life as usual.”
We won’t be paid to try get people’s Attention for a company, but for ourselves. And the more Attention we bring to the table, the more valuable we are to these future partnerships we take part in.
I’m starting to get this thing.
My only question is, “How long?”
Are we talking 5, 10, 20 or 100 years here.
My guess is that it will creep in, not arrive at once. We are in for a long decline of the company centric view of business, and the dawn of the Individual Age.
Both funny and not. In response to the numerous false starts in 2006, and inspired by my last post and a recent blog entry title, perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call. An RSS feed is available.
Old Media Doomsday Clock
Jeff Jarvis mentions a post from a colleague of mine, Scott Anderson, about Big Media’s failure to successfully embrace online communities.
Jeff likes to quote Craig Newmark of cragislist, saying Media needs to “get out of the way” and enable the end users.
Of course he’s right, but that is a two-part show.
1. Recognize the need to get out of the way.
2. Get out of the way.
Obviously, there are intelligent people working for these companies who understand that. Scott Anderson proves that, so let’s assume the first step is or will be successful.
Part two involves actual action. These companies are huge ships to steer in a day when you need a PT Boat to be competitive.
Let’s assume that issue can be overcome. There is one final mine field. Wall Street.
Getting out of the way and enabling communities on the internet is the same disintermediation** that is making eBay, Craigslist and others successful. That success has a short term (at least) negative effect on the traditional “cut” for Big Media, like classified ads.
Since many of the companies are publicly traded, the shareholders are going to have to accept that there will be a short term hit from within on some of their traditional strengths in order to be a long term player.
No war was won without the winning side conceding some loss for the end goal of victory.
Will the shareholders accept that these companies may need to damage currently successful practices for a long term goal? I don’t know.
**Disintermediation and media both stem from the latin medius, or middle. Interesting, considering the strategy suggested here is to get out of the way. It seems to me that we are asking media to pick a side.
I listened to Jeff Jarvis on Brian Lehrers’ show on WNYC today. Couldn’t get through the lines, so I added a comment on his related blog post.
I was able to listen in to the show from Stamford. We get WNYC over the air, but I was at my desk and streamed it. Then I tried to call in, was put on hold, but never chosen as a caller. So I come to the Blog to post a comment.
The above scenario speaks exactly to the point I was going to bring up.
The Newspapers (or Radio here) aren’t dying because of bad journalism, but because of an empowered web-user who is disintermediating the relationship.
One caller call this damaging. I say it’s wonderful.
ebay allows us to sell an item without a Newspaper classified ad. Future versions of Structured Blogging will allow us to do this without ebay.
SharedNews, a name I’ve given to two-way or public feeds will allow us to fully collaborate on everthing from news, calendars and events, jobs and merchandise. The two-way web is here, and it’s here to stay.
So, moving to the web isn’t enough for newspapers. They must embrace the empowered individual and full allow them into the conversation.
How long before we get this.
« Previous Page —
