David Weinberger is a columnist and NPR Commentator. He gave a very interesting presentation on how Web 2.0 is fundamentally changing the way we organize information. He starts with the premise that user-generated content (what you're reading right now) is the new broadcast medium. The Internet has overtruned an ancient assumption: that the more complex an endeavor, the more control you need. In the "old" world, if you wanted to build the Hoover Dam, it takes a lot of engineers, managers, project managers, etc. to make that happen. But the Web is arguably the most complex system man has ever created and yet there's not a single person who manages it. If you need management, it doesn't scale.
He eloquently pointed out the difference between Permission Free Zone vs. Fort Business. Businesses exert power by controlling the information. By controlling the data, we control the message. This process is known as marketing. But in the world of the Web, there are no secrets. It's hard to control data. Information wants to be free. Therefore, the old techniques of marketing simply don't work any more.
So how did markets in ancient times become marketing in more modern times? Because of the Industrial Revolution, which allows for the interchangeability of goods, workers, and customers. Someone described customers as those who "consume messages and crap out cash."
Ironically, though, there is no market for messages. People don't want to be marketed to. That's why we use war terms to describe marketing. Targets. Campaigns. Penetration. We segment based on messages, not real markets. Marketing segments are artificial constructs based on the message we want to push, not on what people necessarily want.
Instead, we need to move to market conversations. To illustrate, go to kenmore.com. The front page is filled with marketing-talk on why its products are so great, etc. But compare that marketing speak with the review from Jim, who describes the pluses and minuses of Kenmore washers. Jim is MUCH more credible than Kenmore, even though Jim's review is filled with typos and grammar mistakes.
How did this change in authority happen? In the world of atoms, things must be organized in certain ways because things need to stay apart. In this physical world, one person defines the ordering type--> the process of taxonomy and classification. This simple limitation means that who controls the information is very powerful. For example, the editor of the New York Times exerts power by deciding what to put on the front page. But who says his decision of what's important is important to me? They also tried to control data by relegating their most popular articles and columnists behind the Times Select subscription wall. Well, just this week, the NY Times ended Times Select because people simply won't pay for that service and the Times was losing its influence because of that fact.
But in a digital world, data and meta data are interchangeable. It's one leaf on many branches. In a physical store, there's only one shelf on which the digital camera can sit. But in a digital store, you can find that camera in an infinite number of bins. It's the difference between tagging vs. taxonomy.
This messiness is a virtue because you can have multiple layers that allow consumers to organize. In the digital world, there's no difference between data and meta data. Meta data is stuff you know. "Herman Melville" Data is the stuff you're looking for "picture of Herman Melville". Meta data is a lever for getting the data but people have different meta data layers.
Also in the digital world, the order of information is unowned. In the real world, you can't go into a store and filter all their products by size. Online, customers own the organization. Therefore, don't limit information, include everything. It's impossible to know what people are interested in; you can't predict their interest, you can only help them discover it. Don't decide for the customer what they want.
With Web 2.0, there's actually a joy in "complexifying" Just look at the amount of content on blogs and discussion boards that a simple :30 second speech by President Bush created. We flock to blogs because we can be as complex and detailed as we want. We aren't limited by space or time.
As for authority and the "truth," market conversations are becoming far better sources of than the source itself. Encyclopedia Brittanica gains its credibility through its editors but Wikipedia gains its credibility by the sheer fact that it readily admits it's fallable. Ability to admit fallability is the touchstone of credibility.
So what to do?
- Put consumers in charge. Put reviews on the product page, even if the reviews aren't flattering.
- Newegg.com has a category tree, but you can also search by attributes and tags
- Allow multi-faceted classification. Let the tree assemble itself dynamically by the consumer.
- Let your information be free. Look at the Times Select example.
- No dead ends. Put more links from the review to the reviewer.
- What's yours is yours. Manufacturers should put in the hard data and specs about their products
- But just remember that what we think about you is mainly shaped by us, not the company. Reputation is more important than brand.
- To solve the paradox of choice, build the tools that help consumers answer their questions
No comments:
Post a Comment