I don’t think anyone doubts Varian’s view that only very specialized content will draw consumers in enough to where they’ll pay. The experimentation is taking place, albeit it seems only sparse. Most news organizations appear to have implemented some form of user-generated content by now, but sadly that’s just not enough.
Did they really think opening up comments on stories would make that much of a difference? Fact is, most comment streams look terribly stale when compared to the real-time conversations happening in niche communities and social networks like Twitter.
In my view, the best thing that newspapers can do now is experiment, experiment, experiment. There are huge cost savings associated with online news. Roughly 50% of the cost of producing a physical newspaper is in printing and distribution, with only about 15% of total costs being editorial. Newspapers could save a lot of money if the primary access to news was via the internet. Hal Varian, Chief Economist
On a brighter note, some news organizations have realized that information sometimes needs to be packaged in other ways in order to be valuable. The example I always use is Mint.com. The way they’ve used the aggregated data of their user base is not only creative but it drives interest. More interest is exactly what newspapers need.
As far as experimentation, I think that will come in the form of real-time curation and collaboration with citizen journalists and other hyper-local sources. The move to more open styles of reporting and media coverage will tap into an ecosystem of information sources that will provide other forms of advertising and e-commerce.
How can anyone really think using community and curation tools won’t be a boon to media companies and publishers? The ones that get it are already committed to establishing better ways of sharing and collaborating, baking that mindset into every part of the business.
Not so long ago every pundit preached “community” this and “community” that (me included). Sure that’s a part of it, but in less than a few years, things like Twitter, Google Buzz and a newsier Facebook have forced private and public institutions alike to look outside of their comfy websites and community hubs. Brands and online publishers realize the conversations happening in other online environments and niches can often overshadow much of the activity taking place on their own web properties.
The BBC’s recent statements underscore much of the shift taking place not only in media outfits but in corporations, where internal and external teams are scrambling for the right mix of engagement and listening.
"For BBC news editors, Twitter and RSS readers are to become essential tools, says Horrocks. Aggregating and curating content with attribution should become part of a BBC journalist’s assignment; and BBC’s journalists have to integrate and listen to feedback for a better understanding of how the audience is relating to the BBC brand."
Shifting Roles and Perceived Priorities
The other thing you’ll see as the aforementioned scrambling takes place is a shifting of skill sets and even roles. Most companies don’t need a social media director, they just need their own employees to rally around their own assets. Or another way to put it. What’s important to organizations is understanding how to scale what’s already right under their noses.
Knowledge, customers, alliances – all the things that make a business a business – are what all of us have to become better at promoting and publicizing. Most companies need a good communications playbook way more than they need any technology, media plan or whiz-bang strategist.
And somewhere between the analysis paralysis and the trip to the CFO’s office lies the epiphany that you and your company can do this stuff. You see, you’ve been talking to customers all along and you pay people to make sure they’re happy with your product or service. What you haven’t been so focused on is helping them understand it’s ok to connect with them in other environments, around the global water cooler, if you will.
As the social web and 2.0 mindset fades into the fabric of business, the things corporations will ultimately cling to will be collective wisdom, innovation and the desire to make a difference. That’s more than a skill set. That’s passion and that’s willingness to change.
I took the passage below from one of The Economist’s latest stories on social networking. I tend to agree with the assessment of Twitter as an “information company,” the more I see its evolution.
“..Mr Stone says he sees Twitter as more akin to an outfit like Google than to Facebook. He describes the business as “an information company” whose users are keen to find out answers to what is happening in the world. The billions of tweets that Twitter is gathering up could certainly be the basis for a vast, searchable archive. The challenge facing Mr Stone and his colleagues is to find smart ways of transforming those raw data into profits."
I know there’s a lot of folks who’ll go to their online grave exclaiming that Twitter is simply a community. I don’t disagree, I’ve worked inside my own Twitter community for almost three years.
But if you look at how the platform is being used and monetized, it’s exactly as Stone describes in the passage above. Both Google and Microsoft have compensated Twitter for its “information” and that interest doesn’t appear to be waning soon.
Both Bing and Google realized early on that real-time would have a big impact on the way people search for information. While they’ve got their own share of eyeballs, the reality is that you and I continue to communicate on an always-on and instantaneous channel as we share on Twitter’s platform.
None of the others — Google. Microsoft, or Yahoo — have anything to rival that. Of course Facebook is the closest. as The Economist points out, but still lacks the openness that Twitter provides. Until Facebook or another entrant opens to the web completely – a la Twitter – its information will remain at a premium.
One of the things I like about Ogilvy’s thoughts is how they make it clear that social media isn’t owned by one department or the other. That ownership volley is what costs too many companies precious time. It’s much easier to rally the business units that want to step up and commit resources and budget.
The other thing that stood out is Ogilvy’s Social Enterprise Change Framework. There’s simply not enough frameworks out there to anchor how companies can begin thinking about an interactive strategy. Hell, I still reference Forrester’s POST methodology for some of the sessions I’ve run. What the Ogilvy framework smartly outlines are the steps required for brands to establish “Centers of Excellence” – yes the COE is back. And it actually maps really well to the challenges I see in the marketplace. Without sharing the burden – ok,tasks – companies are easily victimized by the silo effect and just can’t scale social media expertise across the organization.
The “Action” step in the diagram shows how talent needs to be peppered throughout the organization. Which lines of business to start with can often be the most daunting exercise. It’s hard to look inward and admit your customer service sucks needs improvement, although half the Twitterverse probably already knows it.
And while “action” is the right word in this context, I’m seeing companies act with more preciseness these days, as if engagement strategies were planned for long-term sustainability. I know, what a concept, right? Part of it’s from earlier social media war wounds and part of it’s due to the listening capabilities that are now utilitarian. What the Ogilvy whitepaper also largely underscores is how twenty-ten will be year that social media’s shiny new object affliction is finally cured.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=179080f0-ff11-4a04-b83a-71522e9cafcb)
I took the passage below from one of ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4c5a5281-206f-4592-a04f-6c09fba3f053)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=83801370-a541-45af-b818-8f438df278e9)
