 Yesterday I received a delightful note* from Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Support Economy, which describes what I listed as one of the most important political & economic ideas of 2003. Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria, who wrote The Future of Freedom, wrote to me last fall about my review of his book on these pages. And I've communicated recently with one of the editors at Fast Company. I didn't take the initiative in any of these communications.
The fact that leading writers and journalists know we bloggers exist,
and take the time to thank us and clarify their thoughts (and ours) in
correspondence with us, comes as something of a surprise to me. It is
at once sobering and flattering that we even appear on their radar
screens -- there are, after all, millions of us, and, at least in this
corner of the blogosphere, we're not even A-listers.
I think in fact we play a much more important role in the media than we
might think. That role is a result of the power of our networks, which
are more dynamic, sensitive and agile than those of print journalists
and book writers. We can sense quickly and effectively when there's
something happening -- a shift in public consciousness or attitude, a
new issue or idea gaining traction -- because of our connectedness,
because of the strength of weak ties and those ties' ability to create at least small tipping points. If the mainstream media are the stomach of the media beast, its power plant, we are its antennae.
This role provides us with both opportunities and responsibilities we
might not realize. The opportunity depends, of course, on what your
blog is about, but there should be some general principles that apply
to any of us in this periphery of the information society. Here are a
few ideas on how bloggers could connect better with other media, and
perhaps raise our profile and expand our role in the process:
- Tell the media you're talking about them:
If you cite a writer in your blog, and do anything more substantial
than just link to something they've written, let them know. Even if it
only brings results 10% of the time, invite them into the conversation.
Many professional writers have no idea what blogging is about, and you
can really open their eyes to the opportunities for connection and idea
exchange.
- Find their personal e-mail addresses:
Work to bring print and audio-visual media writers into our networks:
Try to dig out their e-mail addresses, encourage them to post them at
the bottom of their articles, the endpages of their books, the bottom
of the screen, the end of the broadcast, the media company's website.
Letters to 'the editor' or to 'the network' or to 'the program' just
don't cut it any more. We want to get personal. Once you've got their e-mail address, use it, but do so sparingly and always send them something they can use.
- Make it easier for them to reach you: We
bloggers need to do a better job of identifying our own e-mail
addresses on our sites, so that mainstream media people can find them
without looking for cryptic symbols in the corners of our pages.
- Offer to collaborate:
Volunteer to play a role in a favourite writer's follow-up or next
article or next book. Feed them ideas, briefly, thoughtfully, as often
as they occur, but but don't take it personally if they don't respond.
Writers have lots of irons in the fire, and often live hand to mouth.
Malcolm Gladwell's recent article on SUVs and learned helplessness was
mentioned as a project in progress in an interview he gave five years ago.
And remember they work for editors, and even if your contact likes your
idea doesn't mean it will necessarily see the light of day.
- Make yourself available:
If you have the gift of speaking impromptu, the media are always
looking for articulate subject matter experts who can give them quick
sound bites on controversial issues. Just make sure you think before
you speak!
- Don't exaggerate or misrepresent:
Identify and respect your sources, but don't be afraid to volunteer
your own opinion. And never, ever, make anything up, or lie about your
sources or your own credentials. You'll get caught, and you'll be toast.
- Do the work that they can't:
Understand that their writers make their living from what they do, and
are very unlikely to pay you, or even share much credit with you, and
don't want you writing the story for them. They do want you to do their
research for them, however -- most writers today don't have time or
budget to do investigative reporting, chase unsubstantiated leads, do
background work, or double-check facts. They need people to do that for
them, ideally for free.
Not very glamorous, admittedly. Or profitable. But it builds on our
strengths -- connection, knowledge skills, research skills, numbers,
breadth, time. Yeah, I know -- what we really do well is write. What we really
want is a column in the big papers, or the monster magazines, with a
book deal on the side. Patience. The mainstream writers are just
discovering us. The editors will take a little longer.
* I wrote:
Idea #8: The next economy will support consumers
holistically to solve their problems, not just sell them products - In
her book The Support Economy, Shoshana Zuboff argues that
what is needed is a new economic layer, a
're-intermediation', between the producer and consumer, which consists
of 'federations' of businesses and 'advocates'
who work collaboratively to look after the busy consumer's needs
cradle-to-grave and deal with
the multiple suppliers in the product/service delivery process. I
confess I don't share the author's exuberance that such 'support' will
be affordable by any except the rich elite.
Professor Zuboff replied:
Federated support networks are not intended as a
reintermediation or as an additional "layer". If that were the case,
then your skepticism would be well founded. It would cost too much.
You can't preserve the status quo and just add another layer, we will
all drown in cost and administration and end up further away from the
support we desire. Sometimes even the book's most avid fans think of
advocates as some kind of super concierge. I suppose because that's the
closest model we know that can help us imagine "support". But concierge
services exist to buffer us from the adversarial DNA of the enterprise
system. Our argument is that the conditions are ripe for the emergence
of a new system with wholly different DNA. It won't need buffers, or
layers, because it is either fundamentally aligned with my needs, or it
fails.
Federated support networks exploit the digital medium to eliminate the
administrative hierarchy we just spent 100 years building and
expanding. That's what we call "infrastructure convergence", and
without it there is no way to think radically about new cost
structures. We needed that hierarchy, or at least some of it, when
these integrative technologies didn't exist. We don't need it
now.(this is the history of the literature on transaction costs, and
Chandler's basic point.) The key issue now is the way in which a
distributed model, now made possible by technology, can subsume the old
models based on concentration. That is the step function that can
eliminate massive cost and allow the whole enterprise system to be
reconceived and reorganized around the needs of individuals and
families, instead of around products or services. As Seymour Melman
demonstrated half a century ago, managers are never going to stand in
line to give up all the stuff that reports to them. These institutions
probably can't be rescued from the downward spiral in their entirety
(some assets will survive, but reconfigured). We need new ways of
starting, just like Ford did a century ago.
I also really appreciated the Fast Co. Wal-Mart piece, and especially the way it vividly illustrated this endgame.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
