This is my first blog post...ever. Which is crazy because I have been reading blogs and commenting on blogs forever. I get news about new products from blogs, I get customer service "ratings" on restaurants and stores from blogs, and I look to blogs for tips and tricks on various subjects. I guess it is ironic then that this first post is about how Web 2.0 (or Live Web as coined in "The Age to Engage - Chapter 1) has changed how people interact with products and brands, and how it has stolen value from TV and newspapers.
Successful marketers must constantly be reinventing their product & brands. This also includes managers of newspapers and TV stations. Historically, advertisers and marketers alike have been relying on newspapers and TV to distribute mass messages to the public. This was a push mentality - marketers pushing content to readers, viewers, or subscribers. Newspapers and TV stations made money, and consumers were happy for the information and entertainment.
However, as Gil and Frank outlined in the newspaper podcasts, the internet began to gain relevancy because it gave users the ability to customize content for free, and newspapers were painstakingly slow to respond. Soon, newspapers lost all revenue sources to the internet - automobile classifieds to cars.com, other classifieds to craigslist.com, personal ads to match.com and eharmony.com, and advertisements to email marketing, banner ads, and other more targeted avenues. Suddenly, newspapers lost relevancy as consumers received information and entertainment for free from the internet. Why would anyone pay subscription fees? As Frank said, people can begin to tailor their news feeds to match personal interests, and "pull" content to their preferences. This customization is something no medium previously allowed consumers.
The secret behind Web 2.0 is easy, free customization.
Before Web 2.0, publishing content was difficult - you had to be an expert in code to blog, or you had to work with a publisher to get anything in print, or you had to work with a newspaper to put in a personal ad. Now, it is easy. Facebook is easy & trustworthy ("Do you trust this face?" GQ Article on M. Zuckerburg). Blogspot makes distributing content easy and free, and setting up a profile is easy on match.com and it offers more customized choices than the newspaper.
Newspaper and TV as mediums do not have the value trifecta today: easy, free, customized.....the new Web 2.0 does. It is not hard to see why this has marketers and managers reeling.
Good first week! I found your "first blog post" interesting and well-informed. I paused as you indicated agreement with the "smarter" and "dumber" perspectives--but your explanation offered clarification. (I have a bias in favor of the "smarter" theory. We may go about thinking and decision-making differently but I tend to think with more information and tools available we're smarter.)
ReplyDeleteI can't accept the "shallow" thinker label, particularly for Zuckerberg. Having gathered all the information I can about him (personal interest) I think he's a genius that has a profound vision.
Finally, I note with interest that the newspapers may be rallying. The New York Times has recently established a "paywall" and their early reports are positive. And, led by Rupert Murdoch's persistence, it also seems the WSJ is succeeding with some innovative approaches to their business model. They may have been slow to react, but maybe a business model transformation is underway.
Thanks for responding! You may be right about newspapers and the business transformation that is happening, however is it too little too late? In the age of twitter, facebook, and you tube an instantaneous news cycle has been created, where in cases like the uprising in Egypt, newspapers got their information from Twitter posts. I would love to fast forward 10 years and see what the newspaper (which by definition is limiting =))business model looks like.
ReplyDelete