Scott Karp builds on some insightful comments by Matt McAlister in his ongoing exploration of the transition from Media 1.0 to Media 2.0. As usual, Scott’s post gets strong points on style, substance and thought-stimulation. Here’s Matt’s comment that gets him started:
The hyperlink was a vote in the search-driven Internet. Now I’m dependent on a new currency - human action. The click is much more potent than the existence of a link. Even more potent than clicks are tags, ratings, comments and emailed URLs. A hyperlink is still a vote, but seeing some form of human action gives me much more confidence that a source has value.
So, the trick now is for content creators to figure out how to get users to act on their stuff. How do you get people to add that extra bit of value to your content that validates and then qualifies the value for other people? And then how do you expose the user-contributed value so that the right things get picked up from the right tools at the right time to reach the right people?
Scott sees another important variable in the Media 2.0 success equation:
I think Matt has it exactly right - but there’s still a crucial element missing. It’s not just about getting ANY people to “add that extra bit of value to your content that validates and then qualifies the value for other people.” For “the right things get picked up from the right tools at the right time to reach the right people,” content creators need to get the RIGHT people to “act on their stuff.” Like Matt, I have more confidence in human action, but I have more confidence in some humans than others.
There’s an egalitarian sensibility among Web 2.0 and participatory media evangelists that says any participation is good participation. But as anyone who works in media ought to know, all audiences are not created equal. Some audiences are more valuable than others, depending on what you’re selling, what your message is, or what your objective is. That’s why you don’t see ads for Prada in Saltwater Sportsman or ads for fishing rods in Vogue. And that’s why I find community filters like Digg and Reddit so useless. If you have a random group of people act as a filter, you’re going to get a random result.
To make his point, Scott confesses his own lack of contributory value to the collaborative format of pick-up basketball:
Yes, there are many types of intelligence, knowledge, and talent, but some people have more than others. So get over it. I can’t play basketball, which is why I can’t show up at a free city court and expect to be included in a pick-up game just because the financial cost of entry is low - I will add NO value to the other players and in fact will detract from their game experience.
Scott concludes by agreeing with Umair Haque that “the future of media lies somewhere between Old Media and Web 2.0,” adding that “[w]hoever finds this middle ground between audiences and applications, between human intelligence and technology, will win the media game.”
Old Media has the audiences, but doesn’t know what to do with them. New Media knows what to do, but doesn’t have the audiences. So what to do? For Old Media, the answer is simple. Start engaging your audiences and leverage the value they can create. For New Media (Web 2.0), the challenge is to figure out WHO your audience is…Don’t build an application just because it’s “cool.” Do some market research. Find a group of people with an unmet need that you can address…If you have any hope of making money by selling advertising, you need to know who your audience is and what their relationship to you is.
Mitch Shapiro at 8:16 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
