A couple of days ago, Josh Bernoff posted on what he describes as a divide between "corporatists" and "purists," saying both groups are wrong and that what is coming is a hybrid version of the two camps. I have have written a good deal on this topic and agree that there are two camps . I do stand in one of them as I defined them. Josh calls me out, pointing to a post I had up in December and seems to think that I am in his "purist camp," a camp that he characterizes as being anti-corporate, and personified by Doc Searls, co-author of Cluetrain and one of the pioneer thinkers of what has evolved into social media. He implies that we purists somehow oppose corporate objectives, which seems to me to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been writing about these last several years.
We are at a flex point in social media's advent that will impact how small, medium and global enterprise will relate to markets. It is a point of great disruption. Some companies will get it right and some will get it wrong. This happens at flex points in history and inevitably, when things settle down there will be survivors of past eras and victims. There will be new names as yet unknown as Google pretty much was at the turn of the new century.
The debate that Josh addresses will determine some of the winners and victims. The issues are unique in some ways but redundant to earlier times in some ways. Every new world-changing technology puts some businesses through wormholes of change and that is what is happening now.
The social media revolution is very much like the early days of radio. Radio allowed people in homes everywhere to hear the same event, sports, symphonies, the president speaking. It faced a moral dilemma between providing culture and entertainment or lighter fare such as Amos 'N Andy. The outcome was determined, not by evil broadcast mogul as is often described, but by a market who bought more Lucky Strike cigarettes because of commercials that advised them to reach for a cigarette instead of a sweet.
Social Media is now at the type of crossroads that radio faced. What I say or Josh says, or corporation say may influence the outcome in some small way, but the market will decide, not us. Just as viewers decide whether American Idol will enjoy greater support than CSpan. Many of us would rather kick back with a Lost Episode than National Geographic in Kenya. So we get more of the former.
The broadcast debate went on for more than 50 years. Perhaps it continues. The social media debate may extend just as long, but I think not. ill it ultimately be just another channel, a brand extender, another place where corporate messages can be crammed into the foreheads of people who do not want them?
I think not. I hope not. But it is not for me to decide. The best I can do is keep writing pieces like this and maybe influence a few people in the right direction.
I think my viewpoint has a chance of prevailing because of how the Broadcast Media turned out.
People have grown tired of broadcast marketing and they have grown weary and wary of marketers who seem to stalk them wherever there eyeballs land. No one seems to want to be marketed to anymore, not even the marketers themselves, or so they keep telling me. People want to be listened to and now that there are social technology tools available, commercial interests can have conversations with people at very low cost. That means they can make better goods and services, build stronger relationships and loyalty, generate authentic word-of-mouth endorsements and extremely high efficiency .
As nearly all business decision makers will tell you, traditional marketing is not low cost. It is not highly efficient. It is not very credible. It does not give people a sense that a corporation or a brand, a government or a candidate wants to hear what we think and feel.
Josh implies I am a purist. I would not call myself any such thing. Until six weeks ago I made a living, consulting companies on how to profit and prevail.
As Josh implies, I am indeed a revolutionary, but that is because I think business will benefit from the result of the upheaval as well as customers and all other infrastructure players who can adapt to the fundamental change which we are now undergoing.
I believe scalable conversations make markets friendlier, more profitable and much more efficient. I am an advocate of freedom and believe there can be no freedom at all without economic freedom. Corporations are characterized by some as being no more than the pieces of legal paper that form them. I characterize them by the people that comprise them and form their culture. I am for free enterprise because there is no freedom without economic freedom and because that is the best way to improve products, services and profits.
I resent Josh's implications of the "purist" label because it implies a rigidity that is not the case. People will do with social media whatever they wish to do. All I can do is write pieces like this and hope that I will influence someone somewhere.
I also think Josh fails to understand the relevance of Doc and the "Cluetrain Quartet." Revolutions are rarely started in the centers of power. They usually begin up in the hills, far from the centers of power. What I have done subsequently and what Josh has done subsequently would not have happened if the seeds of revolution had not been planted by Cluetrain. The revolution has moved from the hills and into the centers of power. It's language and culture is evolving rapidly from one dominated by geeks to those concerned with the cost of goods sold and making the margin forecast for the coming quarter.
But we would never have gotten hear without the Cluetrain guys. Just like the moderate John Adams would never have had a presidency to go to without the fiery words of his cousin Sam, who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor.
I have read Josh's post several times now I am still not certain I understand what he means by "Hybrids" in terms of social media. Perhaps it's intended to just e a teaser for his upcoming book with Charlene Li. If his implication is that corporations can treat social media as another traditional brand extender, as another place to push messages into the foreheads of people who do not want them, I agree that companies are free to try.
But I think it's bad advice. It just will not work. It's not about purism. It's about pragmatism.
