So if you cannot truly give value back to your relevant community and stay relevant then you become irrelevant instead. Simples. The only thing I would say is where is mobile in all of this guys? And lets see some of that innovation this side of the pond! Question – really is anyone in the UK doing some good stuff on local news and journalism? As I would happily champion their cause.

I asked Alan the question as what he thought the deeper forces were that drive this quiet revolution towards mutuality. As in many ways, the presentation was a more mechanical description/observation on how this all worked. You can’t win – but I had to ask the question, as I believe that for many, the reasons we are in transition from one type of economy/society to another is central to understanding what comes next, and how to get there.

Which led onto other questions from the floor like, why would I buy your paper when I can get it for free online? and I feel uncomfortable that you are working with “non-expert journalists” surely this dissolves your authority and value? Or, I am canceling my Guardian subscription Rupert Murdoch has got to be right? Fascinating, because of the linear/industrial assumption of status conferred by title, authority assumed by some and taken away from others (all very hierarchical) – whereas Alan Rusbridger argued that the true skill of his journalists is in curation, aggregating and interpreting – and I think that is right. On the topic of co-evolved consumers as Kevin Kelly called them, I would prefer to think that citizen journalism in some ways relates to Richard Sennett’s idea about Craftsmanship. But I did get the sense that quite a few people in that room were at the early stages of the journey of understanding the full consequences of living and working in the network society. As Clay Shirkey wrote, Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. This open platform approach to journalism and newsbrands that relates to the Guardian one can (read more here). And there was a very relevant question raised about data, its uses and implications form an ethical and legal perspective.

In Currency of information: the future of newspapers, I quoted Alan who wrote The future of newspapers is a bit like climate change: there are now far fewer ‘old-media’ deniers. Indeed, as its only when companies start to hemorrhage cash quarterly, and when the FO has done all cutting, in some instance through the bone that they say, OK what is it I need to do? I truly admire the Guardian, as they have consistently worked at evolving what it means to be a valued newsbrand in the networked society, and I equally admire Alan Rusbridger as editor of that newspaper, as under his stewardship the Guardian has responded to the challenges that were apparent some time ago. He did point out the journey for the Guardian has not been all plain sailing (reading between the lines here) but through dialogue internally and engaging in the debate – progress has been made, and continues to do so.

The project for Excellence in Journalism report stated

If older media sectors focus on profit-taking and stock price, they may do so at the expense of building the new technologies that are vital to the future. There are signs that that may be occurring.

what do we take from the old to combine with the new?

The only way to save journalism is to develop a new model that finds profit in truth, vigilance, and social responsibility,” Phil Meyer said.

That dull phrase, “new model,” includes stuff that is not dull at all. Like a different kind of company to work for, a better sense of how journalists can create value on the Web, a new and deeper commitment to interactivity with users as a way to do more kick-ass reporting.

My view is this, its not that the decline of the mass media (here) businesses could be completely averted, however, these companies could have been in a far better position to face a market place defined by what I call networked economics. Instead, these boards have attempted to squeeze more efficiency from the thinning value of their current business models. Though it would be a brave CEO to stand up and say, we are fucked, lets rethink our business model, for the simple reason that she or he – the CEO must talk up his or her business to the media, shareholders and analysts, and harvest the cash-flow for the quarterly numbers. The whole-scale tragedy is eventually failure to act in a timely fashion means that the road crash at the end is that more; final and ugly – for everyone. Lost jobs, lost lives, and a big black-hole for institutional investors wondering how they will ever get their pension funds back. The research findings from Communities Dominate Brands published in 2005 lead us to conclude that it is about: Connectivity, Culture, Community and Commerce. You can’t separate these anymore, without failing commercially.

The key points are in my humble opinion that:

[1] We live in a Read & Write culture

[2] We live in a participatory culture

[3] We live in a search economy and a semantic universe and refined data transforms how brands and people can find each other in more meaningful ways

[4] We live in the networked society Which also encompasses the glittering allure of the mobile society

This transformation Yochai Benkler argued is structural – challenging how businesses and markets will co-evolve over the oncoming decades.

[5] The networked society and the Read & Write culture dramatically alter the power relationships between society the media, and organisations.

“In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomised  but connected ‘up’ to Big Media, but not, across to each other, and now that authority is eroding”, says Journalism Professor Jay Rosen

[6] That communication technology is political

Communication power, says Manuel Castells is at the heart of the structure and dynamics of society. By which he means, who has and who wields that power, can transform society. Communication technology is at the very heart of this current transformation of society – because we are seeking meaningful communication with each other, something that traditional media has failed to grasp, or crassly deployed it via Pop Idol and the X-Factor. The reality is that there there are consequences to this evolution.

[7] That interruptive, display, and image advertising is the junk mail of the 21st Century.

[8] There is no online and offline, there is no analogue vs. digital there is only blended reality – the crisis comes when there is no connectivity. Business models must reflect that fact. This also has implications for how organisations construct themselves.

[9] The language and therefore the literacy that defines this networked society is different to the straight line, siloed, industrial mass media, mass consumer language and literacy.

[10] Business value is defined by (a) being: life-enabling, life-simplifying and navigational (help me navigate through the complexity of my life), (b) business models are hybrid, (c) the 4C’s: commerce, culture, community, connectivity.

SMLXL archives on newspapers, newsbrands

Digital natives vs. digital immigrants, digital marketing and communication strategies.

And I guess that was a necessary phase – but now its time to move on. Its time to recognise that if companies continue to worked in a linear fashion, and talking about digital this and that, which is exclusive to the online world – rather than talking about how do we create the most compelling customer, audience, peer to peer experience that we can – companies and organisations will continue to struggle with this wired up world.

A key point

…reasonable people may differ on what is the proper role of government in the regulation of media, or what limits – if any – should be placed on freedom of expression. Some civil libertarians object to laws allowing individuals to file civil lawsuits for libel or defamation, and certainly a case can be made that in the UK, for example – where the law allows a much broader range of action against media than in the US – that this unduly inhibits the press.

But international organisations or editorialists who take an absolutist or anarchist position with regard to countries such as Ecuador should apply the same standards to the US and other rich countries.

And

As Michael Copps, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission has emphasised: “Using the public airwaves is a privilege – a lucrative one – not a right.” He has argued, in the New York Times and elsewhere, that the US government should use its legal authority to deny the renewal of broadcast licenses to media outlets that do not honour their pledge to serve the public interest.

Food for thought:

As Jay Rosen posted last year

In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. And now that authority is eroding.

Do news brands want the right to charge for the right to lie to you?

Straight line thinkers struggle in a world of no straight lines

Citizen journalism, truth, trust and power

The fall of Tom Daschle and the rise of public man

Analogue media pushes the panic button

And ultimately will our media look like this? Or indeed Pro-publica (wikipedia) and what migth be the consequences of that?

A blended reality approach is absolutely necessary

Of course, developing an active social media presence through Twitter and a Facebook Fan Page is critical to developing a readership. But for hyper-local journalists, face-to-face community building is also crucial to the mission. “When you’re ready to launch, make contact with community members you trust and respect as well as the local leaders who you’ll be covering to introduce your site,” says Larson. “Community support for your effort is critical, and having the respect and response from your sources will help you lead the pack.”

Networked economics and media

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16230215@N08/4066005402

WHY is Google winning? And what does it tell us about the future?A fortnight ago, Rupert Murdoch told Australian Sky that he would stop Google from indexing all of his content, preventing it from becoming a one-stop aggregator.  Murdoch has been saying for a while that he wants to stop his newspapers haemorrhaging cash by charging for online content. He is right to wage the paid content battle – but there is a bigger battleground.  Today everything in business is structured around networks. Everything which was linear is now network-oriented, and the winners are those companies who can align the economics with the ecosystem. That can be a start-up or an established player with vision. Google’s innovation was its business model – not its search technology. Alta Vista was the better search engine, and Yahoo the more dominant one, but Google developed the business model that home-grown Espotting had pioneered.

That twist of fate gave it a clever ruse to be in control without looking in control, to establish massive network effects not by organising the world’s information, as it claims, but by organising the economics of the world’s information.

Sharing drives commerce in the networked society

Writes Julie Meyer, and she continues

When the consumer wakes up and realises the value of the personal information they give away in the process of browsing and searching the internet, then Google could find itself in trouble. Consumers – like every other kind of content creator – will want a cut of the value of their personal information, and will shift to a new search engine that offers them one.

Something that I have been exploring over the last few years – the business model for the networked society is different to the business model of the industrial society. Something that enrages certain people – but it is inevitable.

The unknown, or the incomprehensible makes us naturally fearful, and so we instinctively withdraw. This is the time to replace our fear of the unknown with curiosity, to embrace the true possibilities of the networked society because in doing so will make you and your company commercially more successful.

You can't be nimble when you tool big 2ost Century business models are as redundant as the 35 acre Packard Plant in Detroit

The Packard Plant in Detroit, a 35-acre site, that once was considered to be state of the art engineering, lies derelict, its workers long gone. Today, Detroit and Flint Michigan are the equivalent of a third world country in a first world one. You cannot be nimble when you scale big. But it does not have to be this way, we need to discard the baggage of a linear way of doing things and embrace a No Straight Line approach to the networked society. Then we are ready to not only survive but, thrive in a non linear world. To do nothing means ultimately the costs of maintaining the status quo will inevitably exceed the cost to change – Detroit and Flint Michigan are testament to that.

SMLXL archives on the economics of sharing

When Rupert Murdoch speaks, he’s either lying or filibustering. The only sensible time to listen for him is when he’s running silent.

I agree with everything that Jack Schafer writes in this post

SMLXL archives on media

From Interruption to Engagement – the journey to truly engaging in the networked world from Alan Moore on Vimeo.

For over 150 years our economies, culture and society have been shaped by astraight-line logic producing considerable economic success. However, in the dawn of the Networked-Society, a straight-line logic of getting stuff done becomes a barrier to progress. Why? Because, the change wrought by the
networked society is structural ­ challenging how markets and organisations have co-evolved over the last 150 years.

This creates a dilemma. And the dilemma is this ­ How can firms and the people that work in those firms, develop coherent marketing strategies/products and services that are premised upon No-Straight-Line principles ­ when they have been versed only in Straight-Line thinking ­ at
least for the over 35¹s ­ from birth? So if the 20th Century was about straight line thinking around commerce, media and communications, the 21st Century will be about a no straight line approach defined as Engagement.

And to bring some sharper focus to what we do here is a film made by the Dutch Think Tank Freedom Lab that explores the central themes of my current research.

The basic outline is this… “I needs we, to truly be I,” wrote Carl Jung, and that is why we as a species are on a quest to rediscover our role in society. Humanity, deconstructed, over the last 150 years, to the point of deconstruction is now deploying communication technologies to regain its true identity. The rise of the networked society is no accident, and a new philosophy is needed to help us with our quest. The core areas are these:

1. System breakdown: We are witness to a structural and transformational change in society.

2. The wholesale pursuit of material wealth has in fact come at a terrible cost for society

3. Threat: the current unsustainability of humanity

4. The true nature of humans and the technology of man: their intimate relationship

5. Liberation Day: We need to examine the various solutions and tools that can enable us to thrive and survive, to take back that which makes us whole as people, individually and collectively.

6. Simplexity: The digital and highly networked world seems to have created a more complex way of living. We need to learn to deal with this complexity, by understanding how it works.

7. Deschoolling: Our imperative is to de-school ourselves in a philosophy that has driven us into a cultural, ideological and economic cul-de-sac.

8. New Philosophy: We need a new language to help us understand the deep context of the change we are in

9. The no straight line universe: We need to explore its shape we need to feel it; physically, intellectually, and emotionally