I was watching Gary Vaynerchuck talk about why he does what he does the other day. You watch it too, the clip is right here. And it is really interesting, because this is what media 2.0 is all about.
You watch that, and you realize a few things. First, that the old media guys at CNN, arguably the best old-media outlet there is, did not get it at all. They still think in terms of publication, not discussion. Second, that there is no more editorial plans, only strategy. You find your passion, you start working it hard, and then you adapt to what comes along - within that passion. Being passionate is probably 85 % of the success behind a guy like Gary Vaynerchuck.
Old media do not work any more because they have turned themselves into places where advertising is sold, not places which have a message. It is telling that old media in other places than the US are doing better - and that publications like Atlantic Monthly, Fast Company, and even Wired are outpacing the "generic" media. They have a passion and an opinion, showing that you can have that as a group, too. It makes sense, actually. Listen to what Simon Sinek says.
Now, why does this make sense? Because when you lose sight of your "why", and lose your passion, your audience leaves. Unless you find a better "why". This is why local papers who believe their main reason for being is to be an envelope for shopping cupons are having a hard time. This is why even the Chicago Tribune struggles - because they have no reason for being. The only thing that holds publications like New York Times and Wall Street Journal together are the passion of their individual contributors. If that goes, they go away.
But there is another important lesson in the Vaynerchuck clip. Look at the media guys: They are talking about going off and tweeting after the show. Why? Tweeting is a part of being connected. This is why Twitter has taken off, and it is why young people shun Twitter in favor of SMS. You keep up with your friends, it is like being able to say "hey, what's up" to the guy you meet in the corridor whenever you feel like it. Or whenever you are about to do something you think they should know about. This is also why old people like Twitter more than SMS: The message is permanent and visible. SMSs disappear. Which is why younger people like them more: They reflect the now. (I am generalizing, of course).
More than that, though: It is about telling when something interesting is happening - or will happen. While tweeting from the delivery room while giving birth may be a bit extreme, it what it is about. I would SMS my friends too if I was about to give birth, and afterwards. Twitter is a bit too much - I am not sure I want that message to remain for all to see.
Which brings passion together with privacy. Nobody reads the legalese of privacy policies. But people feel there is an implicit social contract, which is expressed in the way the site is designed. Facebook has got away with not violating that contract so far, even though they have changed the legalese. But there are thousands of sites out there which did, and had to pay for it. Violating the implicit contract is the worst thing you can do.
Of course, that means you have to understand it first. You have to know what your "why" is. If you know, you can design a page (or service) that expresses that. If your main purpose is to trick people into being patsies for the advertisers - they will notice. And in an era of infinite choice, and infinite availability of information, they will de-select you.
Interesting, this new media world, isn't it? At least if you are old and trying to express it in terms you can understand. If you were born there, I am sure I am boring.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar