Product & Startup Builder

Filtering by Category: "social media"

Defining Social Media

Added on by Chris Saad.
Brian Solis (fellow Media 2.0 Workgroup member) writes about working together to define Social Media once and for all. I agree that it is well overdue!

He writes:
Social Media is, at its most basic sense, a shift in how people discover, read, and share news and information and content. It's a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologue (one to many) into dialog (many to many.)

It is an evolving phenomenon that has captivated some, intrigued others, and is feared and underestimated by many. But if you're new to this discussion, where do you go to learn about the basis for Social Media or simply its definition? The current "go to" reference is Wikipedia, and as I mentioned in previous posts, it is misleading, incomplete, and uninformative.

He goes on to say:

There are many of us who have spent the last year defining and defending Social Media as a legitimate classification for new media as well as documenting the tools that facilitate the socialization of content, including Stowe Boyd, Robert Scoble, Jay Rosen, Chris Heuer, Jeremiah Owyang, Shel Israel, Todd Defren, Brian Oberkirch, Chris Saad, Jerry Bowles, Marianne Richmond, JD Lasica, Rohit Bhargava, Jeremy Pepper, Greg Narain, et al. However, we always seem to run around in circles defining it and re-defining it, over and over again.

He makes a call for us to join in the conversation on Wikipedia to craft a detailed page. Let's make it happen!

Track the '08 US Presidential Campaign with Particls

Added on by Chris Saad.
Note: All these versions of Particls just install over each other. You don't lose your current settings - they just add more subscriptions and watch words to your profile as you go!

'08 US Presidential Race
I have created a 08' Presidential Campaign edition of Particls because I am personally addicted to US politics. It even has its own cool skin.

Check it out here.

Social Media Analysis
Also I made one based on Nathan Gilliatt's OPML file of Social Media Analysts (even though he didn't include theMedia 2.0 Workgroup in his list!).

You can get it here.

Media 2.0 Workgroup
Incidentally, the Media 2.0 Workgroup has it's own version of Particls. It also has a cool skin. Get it here.

Got your own?
Let me know if you create your own Particls 'Topic Radar' using inTouch and I will post them here.

The brain is designed to handle information overload

Added on by Chris Saad.
Earl Mardle has written a post about Scoble's Social Media Overload post and quoted the part where Robert quotes me (yes confusing).

"[...] That leads Chris Saad to ask when we’re going to get overloaded? Oh, Chris, we’re well past that point."
Earl then writes a very interesting response.

"He's right, we're past it. Can we just stop talking about information overload? We've been told about every 12 months for the last decade that we are "suffering" from information overload and the net result has been that every following 12 months we have found ways to multiply the amount of information that comes pouring through our connections."

I also think he's right. Talk about Information Overload is like talking about air - it just is. However, Robert actually misquoting me. I was not asking about information overload. My question to Robert was actually about scaling the social aspects of social media.

The premise is that consuming information is one thing, but interacting and responding with people is another. My question was how many people can you possibly have 1:1 meaningful interactions with. Can Scoble really add hundreds of names and connect with each of them? Maybe so - but could Oprah add all her audience as friends (thus converting them into participants)? Obviously not.

Forgetting that for a moment though, Earl goes on to make a great point about the concept of Information Overload:

"I have a theory; the 'real world" creates and dumps on us levels of information via multiple senses that is many, many orders of magnitude deeper in bandwidth than anything that we can even conceive of coming across the net. Our ability to contact, filter, manage, organise and act on that information is already honed to a very high degree.

Even increasing device-based information tenfold represents a trivial increase in that information load and we actually have no problem dealing with it. To invert Parkinson's Law, our ability to handle information expands in direct proportion to is availability.

Earl's corollary; once we realise that there are deeper wells of information to be drawn on, we dive in."

I think that is a fascinating perspective on the issue. I have never seen anyone think about it in quite that way. Maybe information overload is a myth. Maybe we can each scale up our bandwidth as our needs require. Maybe scaling up isn't even necessary - as Early suggests, maybe our senses are far more capable than we imagine.


I am sure some help with our senses would come in handy though - after all - most of us use sunglasses to help filter the sun right?

Does Media 2.0 Scale? When do we reach Saturation?

Added on by Chris Saad.
I have had this question in the back of my mind for a month now.

"Does Media 2.0 Scale"

If one of the tenets of being in 'Social Media' is for everyone to be... well... social - at one point does your ability to socialize reach saturation point?

To me, Robert Scoble is the best example of this emerging problem.

It seems to me that he is the ultimate Social Media 'celebrity'. He takes his social responsibility seriously. He lists his cell phone and email address on his website and responds to most of his email. He blogs like crazy and comments on blogs that mention him. He talks on panels and joins all sorts of crazy workgroups.

And now... he is adding every single one of his followers on Twitter as a friend!

This is at once both admirable and crazy. How can he possible keep up?

Surely he has (or soon will) reach the limits of his social scale.

I'd like to ask Robert, as one of Media 2.0's leading social celebrities, to write a post about how he deals with all these people coming at him asking for attention - how does he Pay Attention to everyone.

Consider also that if Robert is the new model of celebrity - where the host of your favourite TV show needs to be accessible and social - how does this kind of activity scale to mainstream levels.

Fill us in Robert!

What does everyone else think? Perhaps this is a follow on from the 'My Media Consumption Diet' meme. How do you decide what to ignore and how do you try to scale up your social interactions. How is it possible for more visible people to do the same. How can all of this 'level up' when social becomes mainstream?

Maybe scale is not a desirable effect though? If we scale our interactions up - do we not necessarily have to scale the depth of those interactions down?

What is Media 2.0?

Added on by Chris Saad.
There have been some great questions about Media 2.0 over the last few days so I thought I would join the discussion.

First: What is the best name for the changing media landscape?

Some call it Social Media, others (including me) call it Media 2.0. Jeremiah Owyang asks the question today on his blog "Hate the term Social Media? Help come up with a better term".

Well I think we already have a better term - Media 2.0.

Jeremiah says he hates the 2.0 thing. Well I say too bad. It's great! Why is it great? Because the change in media is not just about social. If it's about one thing then it's about Personal.

It just so happens that we are each (personally) social beings and therefore a symptom of more personal media is social features.

But personal manifests itself in other ways including:
  • More personal choice (more niche content providers including/especially participant created content)
  • More personalization (in the form of recommendations and attention based filters)
  • More personal transparent (public is the new private)
  • More personal presentation (choose your browser, aggregator, device, color)
  • More personal scheduling (choose the time and date of the content - time-shifted/on-demand content).
  • More personal connections - SOCIAL

But there are other aspects of the changing media landscape. Convergence, DRM (that's not very social!), Identity etc. So that's why I call it Media 2.0. It's a major new version of a very old idea. Personal human connection.

In the comments of the post he writes:

Chris, I’m not a fan of “2.0″ anything. What’s happening is the natural evolution of the web, it’s nothing really new is it?

This is why I like the term “Social Media”

Important: Social Media is about People.

I responded:

Social is a symptom of Personal - but whatever your definition - to try to foreshadow the destination/goal before we get there only limits the discussion/possibilities.

2.0 gives people freedom to decide what the next generation will look like while still giving them a buzzword to rally around.

The community and the market will decide what the 2.0 means - and I think you will find that ’social’ is only part of that outcome.

Second: Read/Write Web has an article about the mainstream media using more and more Web 2.0 technologies.

That's because they are becoming Media 2.0 - like the rest of us.

I am a bit disappointed they didn't make the link and mention the Media 2.0 Workgroup's launch at the same time.

Third: There has been an overwhelming response to the Media 2.0 workgroup.

So we have had to stop taking email nominations and changed it over to a wiki. The Wiki also has a page about the workgroup's goals and selection criteria. Nominate your favorite voices.

Also, while the people listed on the page are great voices to help spotlight the discussion, we will start to find ways to bring everyone into the conversation in more democratic ways... stay tuned.

For now I'll give you a hint and say start tagging your content Media 2.0 ;)

More soon...

Guest Post: DIS:Intermediation

Added on by Chris Saad.

Nicholas Givotovsky is one of those people who thinks in such rich, vivid and forward thinking terms that his intellect sometimes frightens you. I have been having conversations on and off with him for 6 months or more and even now I sometimes fear that I only fully grasp some of what he's saying (in a good way!).

That being said... he says it beautifully. So I am proud to include a guest post by him here today. If you feel you have something to say on this blog then please drop me a line.

From Nick (warning - unusually long and eloquent post ahead.)


Underlying almost everything related to digital media and everything to do with the present and future of our digitally enabled lives is one thing. Us. Whether we are called “users”, “consumers” “viewers” “engaged participants”, “stake holders” or “members”, it all comes back around to us, we who are increasingly both the subject and object of the overall digital media enterprise.

So, as we are playing roles as both consumers and producers of the digital experience in its ever shifting forms, we might consider not only the return on investment, the creative rewards, the competitive advantage, and the professional stature that our digital “children” may reap for us. We might also consider how the media and technology that we shape, shapes others, and in turn, shapes our society as a whole.

Walking in New York City the other day after being stood up for a meeting I’d traveled a hundred miles to attend, I noticed an incredible number of people who really weren’t all there. They were somewhere else – on their phones, into their music, plugged in and dropped out of the world immediately surrounding them in favor of some mediated other place of their own selection. By “engaging” in virtual environments, we abandon at least in part our physical selves in favor of virtual presences that extend our abstract experiences at the cost of our direct participation in the physical world.

Could this have a moral, as well as a commercial consequence? Does our digitally connected self carry from the physical world into the digital the human instinct for cross-boundary empathetic connection, or do we leave in the realm of atoms the part of ourselves that connects to others independent of our self-interested or self-centered criteria? Do our digital tools make us more or less human, or both?

We might ask ourselves, is it always okay to turn off the outside world, even if diminishing it in the process? When I see someone marching down the street elbow cocked outward in self-salute, fully “engaged” in the very audible half of a dialog in which no one but he could have any interest whatsoever, and to which none but he is invited though all in earshot are obligated to attend and I think, is this a digital liberty worth defending?

Surprisingly I think in fact it is. For all the undesired outcomes we can name, the digital revolution is reweaving the social fabric, and if some threads are dropped in the process, we can’t be too surprised, though we might do well to take more care on the “local” costs of our “remote” presence. Just as technologies can have a dehumanizing and alienating potential, so also do they have the potential to rehumanize us, by putting us into contact and dialog with others beyond our immediate circle, by connecting us to knowledge and community beyond our doorstep, and equipping us to empower ourselves and others in thousands of new ways. They are the reality-changing reality of our modern world, but they only take us so far.

While it is the technology that provides the context, it does not create the content or the consequence of the experiences it enables. Ultimately, it is we who do or don’t do the connecting and the empowering, and when we are so engrossed in our mediated, filtered environments that we become so disengaged from others that we will shout over them, walk into them and look at, without seeing them, we become something both more and less than human. So no matter what you are doing “out there”, please hang up the phone, turn off the tunes, and check back in with the rest of us from time to time, good people. There is a here, here, and you are invited, though of course not obligated to attend and help attend to it.

In closing here is modest principle to observe in the creation and use of digital experiences, that of coexistence. We should design and use systems and services in such a way that we ourselves would not object to being in the presence of our creations while engaged in another at least potentially equally engrossing and important activity right nearby, one which requires our full attention and also has outcomes that matter.

And a final note (to the person who missed our meeting because, because, although we were verbally confirmed, the electronic invite he’d subsequently sent hadn’t made it into his electronic calendar); thank you for bringing me down to street level in New York where I learned (again) that real flesh and blood human commitment should trump mediated digital connections, each and every time.

(c) NRG/2007

Announcing the Media 2.0 Workgroup

Added on by Chris Saad.

“The Media 2.0 Workgroup is a group of industry commentators, agitators and innovators who believe that the phenomena of democratic participation will change the face of Media Creation, Distribution and Consumption. Join the conversation...”

Summary: Media 2.0 is a term used to describe the emerging social media industry. Every community needs some help to grow. The long tail has a head, and conversation needs a topic. So in this spirit, we have gathered a group of people who are passionate about the issues of Media 2.0 to help propel and focus the conversation.

The term "Web 2.0" has become a little worn out lately, but it has had an important and dramatic effect on our industry. It has spurred innovation, driven investment and ignited the imagination of the entrepreneurial community.

The Web (2.0 or otherwise), however, is only part of the Media landscape. An important part of course, however Media includes the superset of people, places and things that can co-existing in and around the web to create participation experiences.

Radio, TV, Traditional Media Outlets, News, Entertainment, Movies, Music, Game Consoles etc all have an opportunity to innovate by 'getting social', and each will be impacted by and contribute to the transformative effects of Media 2.0.

There are underlying issues and opportunities however. Issues with fancy names like Aggregation, Attention, Convergence, DRM, Distribution, Engagement, identity, Participation. These issues need discussion across the perceived Media boundaries and traditional disciplines so that we can all achieve real, integrated results.

To put it plainly, the visionaries, tool builders, emerging social media participants, 'old media' vanguard, investors and marketers all need to speak to each other to help create this opportunity together.

We call this broader ecosystem Media 2.0.

Like the Web, Media 2.0 is about shifting the power from the few to the many. We, the participants, are (or should be) the most important parts of the emerging Social Media. We each have a story to tell and connections just waiting to be made.

The challenge, however, is to help the unsocial media understand how to be social. To help advertisers understand the value of an engaged, trusting participant over a passive audience demographic. To help content creators understand that sharing and remixing is more profitable than DRM and to shine a light on the best innovations and ideas emerging from that very long tail.

Every community needs some help to grow. The long tail has a head, and every conversation needs a topic. So in this spirit, we have gathered a group of people who are passionate about the issues of Media 2.0 to help propel and focus the conversation.

These participants are from a cross-section of disciplines and agendas. Some merely comment, criticize and consult, some develop tools, some live the dream and have started their own Media 2.0 empires and some are fighting from the inside of established media to change the face of ‘business as usual’.

Join us, comment, trackback, nominate your favorite voices for the workgroup and drive the conversation forward.

You can find the workgroup page at

Highlights from my posts about Media 2.0 over the last year:

How did we get here – The Media 2.0 Landscape starting with Radio

Where's the money in Media 2.0 and the Long Tail?

Channel ME - Creating personal media experiences

What does adding Transparency to old media look like? Can the audience handle it?

Time Magazine declares YOU person of the year

Web 3.0 - Are you serious?

The importance of Personal Relevancy in Media 2.0

New Times Editor focuses on joining the conversation

Added on by Chris Saad.
According to the LATimes website (unbiased reporting on this issue I'm sure) the new editor is helping the paper focus on the internet as the main news distribution platform.

Los Angeles Times Editor James E. O'Shea unveiled a major initiative this morning designed to expand the audience and revenue generated by the newspaper's website, saying the newspaper is in "a fight to recoup threatened revenue that finances our news gathering." [...]

[...] "At this rate, those double-digit profit margins everyone cites will be in single digits and then be gone," O'Shea said, adding later: "If we don't help reverse these revenue trends, we will not be able to cost-effectively provide the news -- the daily bread of democracy. The stakes are high."

I think that's great. No one is quite sure what a newspaper's role in Media 2.0 will be, but online will certainly be the most important part of their business.

Check out the full article for a breakdown of some of the planned changes.

Imagine if they had a way to keep the user coming back for more content by sending them desktop alerts and displacing headlines on a news ticker.

Follow up: 08 Conversations continued...

Added on by Chris Saad.
Marian Richmond has made a fantastic post on the subject of the 08 Campaign Conversation on the new blog (a must read for political junkies and social media observers).

In the post 'Conversation according to Hillary and Barack' she quotes a number of bloggers (including me) questioning the authenticity of the call for conversation citing a number of (false) actions that are speaking louder than the words.

Here's a quote:
"They are not talking to us in the sense that the words that come out of their mouths are written and produced by third parties. They the candidates are not we the people as it relates to social media conversation… which means that the we, those having the conversations on blogs and other social media, are people talking directly to other people. Personal pronouns, we, they, us, are stand -ins for people."

Read the full post here.

Let's start a conversation for 08

Added on by Chris Saad.
Hillary Clinton launches a White House bid declaring 'I'm In'. Watching her video though (as well as a number of videos from Barack and Edwards - thanks to Scoble), I am struck by something that seems to be a recurring theme.

They seem to be focused on the idea of a 'conversation'. Are they speaking to us? You and me? The participants of the social media? Of course they are. They are announcing things online and trying to use the right lingo.

This is an amazing time to be a part of all this. I would, however, like to highlight a problem.

While they are announcing online and talking about conversations (giving the illusion of transparency) they are not actually being transparent. Each of them have been coy about their bid to run for President right up to the last minute. Hillary, even as of a few days ago, was still playing it cool.

Yes I know that's the way it's been done for years - but that's no excuse. Is this a transparent, online conversation or is it not. Stop being coy. Stop pretending like we don't already know the answer. Stop treating us like fools. We are not dumb.

Maybe it's asking a bit much for all of this to happen immediately. They need to learn how this transparency thing works. Maybe it will improve over time and they will actually open up comments, trackbacks and even make direct responses to the blog-o-sphere (feel free to comment here Senators) and maybe as a result... just maybe... they will begin representing the interest of their citizens more fully.

Until then I guess I will just be happy that they are trying to use the right lingo. That must mean they recognize the power of what is lurking here.

It strikes me that perhaps the latest round of Democratizing Information will once again force political democracy (in name) to be democratic (in form and function).

Maybe, eventually, it will create world peace. Just joking.

Sunday morning snippets

Added on by Chris Saad.
A few snippets for the day - then I am off to spend the day on a boat while Ashley and the team slave away cutting code for the next Touchstone build *evil laugh*.

Revising Press Releases
An Anonymous commenter pointed out for me that my mention of Stowe's post about PR people missing the point on Press Releases left out the other side of the discussion. I didn't know there was another side at the time but Chris Heuer has a post on the issue highlighting Stowe's oversights. I like Chris - he bought me a drink while I was in SF.

Chris' point is that while real conversational engagement with your participants is the ideal, Press Releases are still a necessary way to make (and clearly mark) landmark announcements in clear, concise ways. His point (rightly I believe) is that while purists would argue that a 1st person conversation is better than a fake 3rd person declaration, a Press Release is still an important hold-over for mainstream media to get the complete picture in a bite sized chunk

Stowe argues that declaring anything a 'Press Release' is missing the point. That Press (at least press who treat their readers like eyeballs) should die and that we should all be equal participants in the social media ecosystem. By the way I like Stowe too - he also bought me a drink!

My opinion on the matter is this. I think that anyone who takes the time to invent something, lobby for it and contribute to the community is doing the right thing. That's the definition of social.

The issue, however, is larger than this one point. When considering people's opinions we must take into account their bias and their agenda. My agenda is personalized aggregation. My life and my work is based on the premise that people should find what their looking because of their Attention Profile - a fingerprint that represents their interests.

If hRelease (the reason the issue of a Social Media Press Release is being discussed at all) helps Touchstone identify important headlines for journalists, then so be it. Ideally though, the connection of people with content they find relevant should be a transparent and automated process based on merit rather than any corporate press declarations. That might mean they find negative commentary before they find polished/fake/controlled press releases from a company.

I think both can co-exist though - and the community (and some smart algorithm) will decide which they pay attention to most.

Social Media is Dead
I also pointed to the 'Social Media is No Mo' post by Steve Rubel. Some people didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I 'agreed' with him. Brian Solis commented to point me to this post.

Social Media is Dead!

Added on by Chris Saad.
Steve Rubel from Persuasion says Social Media is Dead.

His claim is based on the fact that most mainstream media now has comments and forums and blogs etc... so there is no longer a difference between 'unsocial' and 'social' media - therefore it is now all just media.

What do you think? Is the mainstream media a product of social interactions or a highly controlled editorial process?

Maybe we are can call it Media 2.0


Disagree with me!

Added on by Chris Saad.
I like people who disagree with me. They force me to better refine my arguments and reconsider my assumptions.

Scot Karp's last two posts directly disagree with me so I thought I'd note them here with some of my own thoughts.

First he thinks that news is a shared, social experience. He claims that 'Technology' is as personal as we need to get. Any further personalization takes the 'water cool effect' out of the equation and makes news not very fun. He claims that's why Findory failed.

I would argue there are two types of news. Popular news and Personally Relevant news. Popular news and serendipity is found on Techmeme and Digg, Personally Relevant news is found... well... in Touchstone.

Findory did not fail because it was anti-social - it failed because it had some major gaps (a topic for another post).

Second Scott talks about the iPhone as a platform issue. My post on the iPhone issue expressed my feelings that PDA style phones are platforms and that Apple is missing the point by trying to build an expensive CE device instead of a rich mobile platform. Scott believes that Apple bets on user experience over platforms and it's success with iPod is proof that it works.

I'd argue that the iPod is a cheap CE device. PDA Phones are not.

Let the debate roll on...

I am not dumb - I am wired

Added on by Chris Saad.
Chris Anderson recently posted a pair of articles about a Transparent Wired Magazine. What would that look like? The first post resembles my Media 2.0 roadmap. Read Post 1 and Post 2 here.

Post 2, is far more interesting however. He talks about revealing the internal staff hierarchy to the world, exposing internal staff wikis and scratchpads, publishing drafts and transcripts as they are created, giving users the power to rate comments and include them as part of the story, use their recently acquisition of reddit (or similar paradigm) to actually decide what makes it into the magazine, and my personal favorite - wikify everything.

Imagine that - a place where the articles on a given topic no longer represent a moment in time, but rather an evolving commentary on a given subject. Is this actually feasible? Would the result become unbearably long and detailed?

Something David Dobbs writes in response is very interesting...

Some of the unease rises from concerns that might seem vain or proud: I like to think that in many cases I really AM more qualified than others to write about a given subject and (more to the point) that doing a ton of research on a subject — reading hundreds of pages and talking to highly informed and involved people —gives me a deeper and more nuanced view of a subject that gives the resulting story a certain priority in placement and attention. Indeed, that's precisely what publishing is all about.

He does go on to admit:

(Yes, it's also about power and hoarding information that can then be packaged and sold, yada yada. I'll raise my hand and confess I'm almost certainly unwittingly doing all those things -- but then, so does a farmer or carpenter or plumber.)

I would argue that recently (and maybe for long, long time) in the 24 hour news cycle, the TV media especially has completely failed to provide any real context and neunce to ongoing stories. They seem to glob onto any piece of sensational news and fail to give it any broader meaning.

They use prejudicial words without giving any thought to their bias and they fail to consider the real impacts for real people.

As Chris is suggesting in his posts, Wired and other print journalists could be great at creating over-arching summaries or focusing a community around a topic and then summarizing the conversation at the end. Nuance, however, seems to come from bloggers - not professionals.

He also argues against publishing transcripts because...

Lots of ums and ungrammatical sentences and sentence fragments. Lots of digressions, side comments, and stupid failed wisecracks. All that clutter of broken strings and floating particles makes little sense if encountered on paper by a reader who wasn't present but makes complete sense (well, nearly complete sense) to the person who was there in the conversation.

I think that, unfortunately, Mr Dobbs is making the same mistake that most mainstream media outlets (including TV networks) make. They think we are dumb.

Transcripts reveal something about an interviewee that the resulting article cannot. It reveals character, personality and context.

I have been interviewed many times and, with no disrespect to my journalist friends, my quotes are often taken out of context for the purposes of narrative flow. That's fine for articles - but in this new transparent world - I'd like the option of digging deeper.

Carefactor: 100

Added on by Chris Saad.

With publishing power ebbing from the few to the many and AJAX killing the postback there are a couple of problems emerging.

  1. Media outlets who make a living by selling eyeballs to advertisers are having to prove the value of their ad space amid growing competition from their readers!
  2. When pages don't refresh (because of AJAX), the number of pageviews a site gets no longer matters. When something no longer works, people are forced to invent something new. When people invent something new they are forced to actually look at the problem. What have they discovered? There is a lot more measure than just 'how many eyeballs are there'. Things like 'how wealthy or influential are the eyeballs', 'how much do the eyeballs trust the publisher', 'how reactive and proactive are the eyeballs in relation to the author' and most importantly 'why do we keep ignoring the person and focusing on their eyeballs'.
  3. Advertisers are finding it hard to work out who to give their money to. Is google really the best broker of my advertising dollars? Which ad network or publisher can promote our brand and product better?

As a result, commentators are abuzz about new definitions and algorithms to measure all this stuff.

Comscore is apparently working on a 'Web 2.0 Metric'.

".....While page views will not altogether cease to be a relevant measure of a site's value, it's clear that there is an increasing need to consider page views alongside newer, more relevant measures. comScore is proud to continue carrying the torch as an industry innovator with the development of a new suite of metrics that will effectively address the Web 2.0 landscape by including enhanced measures of user engagement and advertising exposure. We will be introducing these new metrics to the industry in 2007."

And Jeff Jarvis from BuzzMachine talks about the Distributed Media Economy

So pageviews are obsolete already, thanks to Ajax and other unpage technologies and to the widgetization of content, functionality, and branding: Again, what’s a ‘page’? Audience measurements are obsolete, at last, thanks to the fact that the
former consumer is now also the creator and distributor: What’s an ‘audience’? Mass measurements are dead, thank God, because we are now joyfully fragmented into the mass of niches: Who’s a ‘user’?

Dion Hinchcliffe posts:

"it seems clear that users, businesses, and other organizations that deeply embrace the fundamental nature of the Web as a communications-oriented platform without any single owner except all of us, will be the only ones able to fully exploit the possibilities for online applications."

I find this last quote interesting. "Without any single owner". But I think it needs to be taken further. Media outlets and bloggers alike don't own their audience. In fact they don't even own their participants.

While people are happy to get trapped in walled gardens like MySpace for now, they will soon realize that blogs are the real social network. While they are happy to subscribe to 10, 100, 1000 blogs now, they will start to realize that there is far too much content and they actually need to subscribe to ideas/concepts/interests - not authors.

So perhaps if the audience is not owned by any single site/source then the metric should not be bound to them either. Perhaps the best way to measure engagement is not by domain, but by concept.

Search Engine Optimizing Media

Added on by Chris Saad.
Are we now at a stage where online distribution and discovery via search means that media creators need to Search Engine Optimize the name of their TV shows and Movies?

I just discovered a mini-series on Sci-Fi Channel called 'The Lost Room' because I was searching for stuff about 'Lost'.

Was that a coincidence, or was there a decision to name the show in such a way that it would get discovered by online fans of another, very popular, property targeted at the same audience?

I wonder...

In any case, it worked. I am now watching the 3 part mini-series.

Hearing names over and over...

Added on by Chris Saad.
While on our Trip to the US and while chatting to friends and contacts online you begin to hear names over and over. One of those names is John Battelle...

"Oh John Battelle would love what you're doing" - Mr X

"Your ideas are right up John's ally" - Mrs Y

I have only just now had a chance to catch up with John's blog and work. It's fantastic - and now I know why people kept on mentioning him.

As you can see I have recently had a run of posts around the theme of 'Media 2.0' and his recent post about Packaged Goods Media Vs. Conversational Media does not disappoint.

Don't worry John - I got to the end!