image credit: mikebaird

You won’t find the secret to business success online.

So stop looking.

Because everyone is scrambling to produce better content more often, there’s great incentive (eyeballs and wallets) to create new and better guides for business.

I mean, Brian Solis told us how to create and cultivate a brand in social media in just seven steps.

Chris Brogan just shared a simple formula for blogging success that got him 50,000 subscribers.

Forbes thought it prudent to create a slideshow entitled “In Pictures: How To Fire Someone”

And the list goes on.

But as wonderful as these resources and others like them are, their content is really only a distillation of a larger, more complex set of ideas. I won’t disagree that it takes a lot of mental work to reduce a complex issue to 500 words. But there is always something lost in that reduction process—nuances flattened, subtleties ignored.

The Easy Stuff’s Been Covered

If you’ve been reading business blogs—especially those relating to the marketing and PR aspects of social media—for anything more than a year, there will come a point at which every article starts to sound the same (I don’t mean to pick on Solis again, but did we really need another article this week telling us engagement with customers via social networks is a good idea?).

So if we’re looking to learn more about something like how to buy a Facebook ad quickly, we’re golden.

But if we really want to achieve great success, we’ll have to move beyond the simple concepts presented in blog posts.

And in my humble opinion, that means spending more time thinking and doing work offline than we spend online.

Online consumption is fine, but if we’re not acting on all those tweets and blog posts, we might as well be watching cats on YouTube.

As my friend Shane Mac would say (and did say in his forthcoming book [vulgarity warning]), “stop being such a consumption whore.”

The Real Work

This isn’t to say that simple concepts can’t inspire us to great action. Ben McConnell’s 1-page strategic plan post completely changed the way I present strategic business planning.

But the post didn’t replace the hard work of creating a strategy that fits my business, finding the resources to enact it, tracking results, and revising accordingly.

My fear is neither that the Internet is making us stupider (sorry Nick Carr), nor that our online habits prevent us from deep concentration (sorry again Nicky), but that reading and talking about action feels like a great subsitute for real action.

I mean, it’s easier to retweet Charity:Water than to actually pull out your credit card and make a donation, let alone create a campaign.

It’s a lot easier to talk about becoming “trust agents” who “crush it” than it is to actually wake up every morning, get out of bed, and bust your butt.

Let’s Examine What We’re Doing Online

First, there’s the issue of the content we’re consuming.

There will always be a place for bubblegum posts like “Dr. Evil’s 7 Tips for Achieving Worldwide Marketing Domination,” but I think that perhaps more importantly, we have a responsibility to seek out and demand content that describes phenomena and puts it into a specific, actionable context.

Take Umair Haque’s “From Business Models to “Betterness” Models” for example. In the article and others that support it, he describes what’s happening in the marketplace and gives  us a framework for thinking about how business is shifting.

We need to read people who are making these kinds of contributions.

And second, there’s the issue of our own action.

If we really want to make the most of the tools we have at our disposal, we’ll not just participate in the conversation, we’ll take action to move it forward.

And that responsibility starts right now today.

It starts with asking ourselves, “how am I going to use the time I spent reading and interacting online today to achieve specific, actionable goals?”

So what are you going to do today?

-Andrew

Image credit: mikebaird on Flickr. See original for copyright information.

Related Posts

1. 10 Steps to Writing a Popular Blog Post in no Time Flat
2. Help Haiti Blog Challenge
3. The Open/Closed Fight is About Philosophy, Not Facebook

Disclaimer: This is not another self-help pitch.

Given Amazon returns over 31,000 books on stress, and WebMD has a “Stress Management Center,” there are plenty of other more qualified places you could go to for “tips and tricks.”

This is about stress and work, more specifically, your life at work.

This manifesto is a statement of the principles by which I intend to live. If you believe the same, I’d invite you to sign it by adding a comment below.

And if you’re inclined to share, feel free to copy a part or the whole thing. Post it on your blog. Print it out and give it to your boss. Write it on your bathroom stall.

If you want to offer additions or corrections, please also do so in the comments.

The Stressless Manifesto

We believe life is too short to let our careers ruin our lives with stress.

The elevated heart rate, the inability to concentrate, the fear that eats away at our insides, the feeling that any moment might spark a freak out—it’s not worth it.

THEREFORE:

Our careers will be about why, not how or what

As Simon Sinek draws the golden circle for organizations, so too our careers will be about why first, how second, and what third.

It’s easy to say what we do when someone asks: “I’m an accountant.” “I’m a marketer.” “I’m an executive.”

And because it’s easy, our behavior often starts and ends there. We fulfill the roles of our job descriptions, and if we’re lucky, we take the time to think critically about how we’re fulfilling those tasks.

But too often, the realm of why is left to the mundane and transient: for a paycheck, for health insurance, to climb the corporate ladder, to make a million dollars.

With such thinly constructed reasons for why we do what we do, there’s little meaning in what we do, making it easy to stress—you begin to feel “If I don’t jump when my boss says jump, I’ll get fired and won’t have a paycheck” or “If I don’t get this account I’ll never be able to make my fortune….”

We will seek meaning first

We will take the time every day to remind ourselves why we do what we do by filling in the blank:

“I do what I do because ___________________.”

What we place in that blank will be more than money, position, status, or fame.

It will be something stress can’t take away.

The meaning will be about others

If the reason we do what we do is all about ourselves, we will ultimately fail. We may not get the promotion. We may not make a million dollars. We may not be the next Lady Gaga.

To craft meaning that stress cannot take away, we will focus on how our careers impact the lives of others in our communities and our society.

We will judge our actions not only by those stress-inducing profit and loss sheets, but by value we add to others’ lives.

We believe what Umair Haque says to be true:

Production and consumption are meaningful when they actually yield durable, tangible benefits to people, communities, and society. When meaningful work — not just meaningless (yet disciplined) drudgery — is hardwired into a company’s culture, it becomes nearly unstoppable.

When what causes stress, we will cling to why

It would be naive to think that the stress of what we have to do will never bother us.

There will always be another sales goal to hit, another board report to write.

But we will never forget why we act in order to give purpose to the sales goal, the board report, and to view them as means to a greater end.

We will flee from situations that stifle our sense of meaning

If ever a job or client contradicts our sense of purpose or drowns us in meaningless drudgery, we will find something different to do.

Life’s too short not to.

Related Posts

No related posts were found, so here's a consolation prize: CMOs: “Social Media is Better In-House”…DUH.

As the roles of marketing and PR orient themselves away from the industrial practices of the last century to something more socially aware, I think it’s important that we question the role of “the voice of the organization.”

Should organizations speak with one voice that reflects a singular identity and purpose?

Or has the rising role of individual voices in the context of networks supplanted the need for “org” speak, replacing it with the speech of loosely connected individuals?

As a disclaimer, I’m writing this as a theoretical discussion, not a manifesto or even a how-to.

From “Business is War” to “Business is Social”

A few weeks ago at Social Business Edge, Fleishman Hillard Digital SVP Joshua-Michéle Ross presented “Business Is Social: Toward A New Metaphor For Business” (video here, but you’ll have to create a free account to view).

Ross argued that cultural change precedes institutional change: As social technologies shift our culture to one that values transparency, openness, connectedness, and conversation, we can reasonably expect that institutions will follow.

And not just follow in the adoption of social media marketing, but in the adoption of social business constructs.

So where are we headed now? According to Ross, this shift moves us toward a new metaphor in business: from “business is war” to “business is social.”

“…as we move to a different mode of interaction and behavior, the selection pressures on businesses are becoming increasingly social, and we are moving away from business is war towards something more like businesses is social, and not having that conception as a business is becoming a liability—meaning businesses that do not adhere to social constructs will start to have more and more difficulty.”

Shift in Metaphor = Shift in Practice

Assuming that the new guiding metaphor will be “social” rather than “war,” the fundamental way we approach even the most tested business practices (like traditional marketing and PR) will also shift.

After all, our metaphor guides everything by the very nature of the language we use. It’s epistemic. To support this claim, Ross leans on the work Lakoff and Johnson, but I prefer the words of philosopher Paul Ricoeur said on The Rule of the Metaphor:

it was my purpose to demonstrate that there is not just an epistemological and political imagination, but also, and perhaps more fundamentally, a linguistic imagination which generates and regenerates meaning through the living power of metaphoricity.

If the metaphor shifts, we won’t be able to help but shift our practices because the generation of meaning through the metaphor will be different.

It won’t be logical to operate the old way.

“Business is War” and the Voice of the Organization

If business is war, then organizations are armies.

In this scenario, the individual is subservient to unified order of the group. Just like in the hierarchal structure of an army where the only voice that really counts is the General’s, the only voice that counts is the one from corporate communication.

In an army, anyone caught giving orders who doesn’t have the authority is severely punished. The same is reflected when someone speaks out for the organization without the express authority granted to them by the group.

If business is war, then it makes sense for organizations to maintain a tight lock on their corporate voice.

After all, it’s a form of protectionism. First and foremost, it protects the interest of the organization from any message that hasn’t been tested, tried, run past legal and checked against corporate identity books. It protects the seemingly “stupid” or “disgruntled” employees from doing public damage to the organization.

And secondly, speaking from behind the logo is akin to hiding behind a shield. Individuals are protected from having to take ultimate public responsibility for anything they say. Just like a soldier who misbehaves is privately reprimanded or court-martialed, the individual who misbehaves is subject only to corporate punishment.

“Business is Social” and the Voice of the Organization

If business is social and not war, then organizations will be organized more like villages and less like armies.

Unlike Armies which have centralized power systems, villages are formed by loosely connected individuals who each maintain a significant amount of autonomy. And unlike armies which set up in highly guarded camps, villages have porous relationship with outsiders, allowing them to come, go, and pass through with ease.

As outsiders pass through a village, it becomes important for villagers to connect on a personal level with visitors. The merchant at the fruit stand can’t wait for the mayor’s official word on apples before he makes a deal.

Rules for interaction are created by collectively defined ordinance (think official social media use policy) rather than by direct commander-to-troop order.

In social business, individuals are empowered to use their networks for personal and corporate gain. Want an example? David Armano. How many people do you think work with Edelman because they want to work with @armano?

An extreme example, I know. Not everyone in your organization is social super-star. But the good news is, they don’t have to be. When individuals have the power to speak for an organization you exponentially increase your organic reach.

Instead of buying time to interrupt others (advertising), you’re using your best asset—your people—to connect with customers. As your employee’s networks expand, so does your reach.

Sounds like a win-win.

A word about opposition to village speak

Of course, some organizations will oppose “village rule” because they’re afraid employees couldn’t handle it.

But what are organizations other than the people who make them up? My question is, shouldn’t the value of the people you employ be greater than the work they produce? After all, people are an asset that continue to return for the good of the company beyond any individual product.

If employees really can’t handle it, then it might be time to think about some serious training. In village rule, the pathway to success isn’t through demands and edicts, it’s through education and constant coaching.

Where do you stand?

How do you think organizations should handle the sticky issue of the corporate voice?

Please share.

-Andrew

Photo credit altemark on Flickr; see original for copyright information.

Related Posts

1. Community Management Should Include In-House Culture
2. Considering Your Competition’s Use of Social Media
3. We’re transparent, authentic, and on Twitter…now what?

image credit: openDemocracy

The catalyst

Not surprisingly, Facebook’s Open Graph has raised a series of complaints about lack of objective “openness” in the whole project.

After all, Facebook technically owns the protocol, the data, the access. But on the other hand, they’re giving the web a gift—a new understanding of the relationships not just between linked pages (like Google) but of the relationships between people who use those pages.

As TechCrunch’s MG Siegler reported, “Grab the popcorn. There is a serious nerd fight brewing.”

The bigger issue

But the issue isn’t really about Facebook. It doesn’t matter whether you think f8 was good for the open web or just another closed system —

The nerd fight is about philosophy; not Facebook.

It seems to me that what advocates of “true openness” have taken a stance to something near utilitarianism.

(As a point of clarity, I don’t mean utilitarian in the not the colloquial use of the term—something that’s designed for its use value with little regard for aesthetic frills—but in the Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill sense.)

Let me unpack that.

“Utilitarianism” used in the philosophical sense encompasses a variety of viewpoints, but as Stanford points out,

“utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.”

Bentham argued that we should do what provides for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In short, utilitarianism suggests that the value of an action is only as good as its “utility” in providing general pleasure or happiness. Actions are judged by the outcomes they produce (cf. consequentialism).

We can view the Internet itself through a utilitarian lens because at its core, the net is an NEA agreement:

1. Nobody owns it
2. Everyone can use it
3. Anyone can improve on it

NEA prevents any one person or entity from assuming power. NEA promises an entirely egalitarian relationship among users. NEA assures that actions made for improvement, even if they benefit an individual, also benefit the greater good of the community.

Enter Facebook

Of course just because the Internet is NEA, it doesn’t mean that everything built on top of it will also be NEA.

For example, Facebook’s Open Graph fails on all three fronts:

1. Facebook owns it
2. Only people with Facebook accounts can use it (their free now, but Facebook controls all the access)
3. No one but Facebook’s developers can improve on it (the protocol itself)

Listen to the criticism leveled at Facebook from people like Dave Winer:

There is no root to the web. There is no home page. No place you have to go first before you go anywhere else. Same idea — there shouldn’t be any center to the graph-of-everything. That’s where the bar should be set. And Facebook ain’t even in the ballpark.

[...]Anyone should be able to operate a graph. And of course we should be able to point into graph.facebook.com, and not just at the root, but into any bit of data they expose.

Then everyone is on an equal footing. [...] Instead be open in the only way that truly matters — replaceable. And to be replaceable the format has to be simple. That way you have to always be earning your market, by providing superior value, functionality, performance, price and trust.

Winer wants us all to be on equal footing. He is measuring the practices of companies like Facebook against their general utility to provide for the greater good. And in that case, he’s right to say that “Facebook ain’t even in the ballpark.”

The simple reason: Facebook can see immediate benefits from controlling access and from becoming the center of the graph. Facebook is acting with a near-industrial mindset: they’re creating a walled garden, drawing us all in, and then sucking as much money out of us as possible.

With the Open Graph, Facebook defies NEA, because it’s chosen to define itself by what it owns, who it grants access and how it controls its product.

Facebook also defies utility. Although the Open Graph technically benefits everyone, it is stacked to benefit them the most. And predictably, folks like Doc Searls warn of the impending doom if Facebook’s strategy expands

Of course, then we no longer have the Web. We have the Union of Soviet Social Graph Vendors.

Chris Saad paints the situation in more dire terms:

Just like every site on the web today can have its own web server, every site should also have the choice to host (or pick) its own social server. Every site should become a fully featured peer on the social web. There is no reason why CNN can not be just as functional, powerful, effective and interchangeable as Facebook.com.

If we don’t, we will be stuck with the IIS, IE and Netscape’s of the social web and innovation will die.

The Real Tension

So the real tension in this “nerd fight” isn’t about technology at all.

It’s about how we believe society should operate.

Facebook’s philosophy amounts to Industrial capitalism: control access to your product to make as much money as possible.

Winer, Searls, and Saad have taken a moral stand against Facebook, stating the consequences of their actions will subtract, rather than add utility to the open Web.

This debate happens all the time in other areas too. For example, should vaccines be NEA, taken away from pharmaceutical companies for the greater good?

I don’t know.

But I don’t expect this debate to go away any time soon. Until markets sort out what they want from the companies and organizations they patronize, we’ll still be fighting over what it means to be “open” and “closed.”

What’s your take?

-Andrew

Image credit: openDemocracy on Flickr. See original for copyright information.

Related Posts

1. Facebook found a way to Kill Google
2. Broadcast 2.0 v. Open Market
3. Back to Basics: An Open Letter to Publishers

image by jaycameron

Okay, so maybe Facebook won’t kill Google, but I’m predicting they will supplant them as the largest and most ubiquitous web app.

In case you’ve been sleeping, yesterday at the f8 developer conference, Facebook announced Open Graph, a new killer app.

What’s changed

If you aren’t up to speed, here are the three most important updates (and you can read the rest on Mashable):

1. With the new “Facebook for Web Sites” social plugins (the like button is featured at the top of this post), you don’t need to log in to a web page to engage with its content. Try it out.
2. Networks, like Yelp or IMDB, can now connect directly with your Facebook, meaning that when you look up a movie on IMDB, you can immediately see which of your friends like that movie too.
3. The strict charge to app developers that “you must not store or cache any data you receive from us for more than 24 hours” has been removed.

From Dave McClure’s prophesy

In February Dave McClure predicted that “in 2015 the default login & payment method(s) on the web will be Facebook Connect, Google Gmail, or Apple iTunes.”

McClure’s point was that the more you use a platform, the more likely you are to remember a password, so one is likely to win out.

If Facebook, or Google, or Apple could find a way to further spread their tentacles out onto the web, they could help their partner sites reduce password friction. Need to sign into XYZ Company to buy a widget? Don’t bother creating a new account, just use Facebook (or Google or iTunes, etc.)

With Open Graph, McClure’s prediction may come sooner than 2015, and unless Google and Apple come out with their own (better) killer app soon, they’re going to be left in the dust.

After all, why have a PayPal (or Google) account if Facebook will do?

A chink in Google’s armor

Besides finding a way to make commerce easier, Facebook has also created a way to leverage Google’s weaknesses. As Jeff Jarvis pointed out in What Would Google Do?:

Google has fresh links in its database because it constantly and quickly scrapes the web to find the lastest content, but until those new entrants gather more links and clicks, it’s hard for Google’s algorithms to know what to make of them. Could this be a chink in Google’s armor?

Google is really great at counting links because computers are really good at counting. More links to a page means more credibility for the source, means higher organic search results.

But search in this way is built on scarcity—and we all know that content is not scarce on the web.

So search on the web is really just another way of showing us information we already know. It’s very utilitarian in its construction, deeming the most popular results as the most credibile and placing them at the top of the results page.

What’s missing from this process is semantic relevance of content to individuals—maybe my idea of “great indie bands” is far different from yours—and social context.

Where the Open Graph Delivers

At Social Business Edge on Monday, Adina Levin (co-founder of Social Text) argued that social sharing is mostly about context because our individual identities are created and developed in social contexts.

For example, I value ethical practice in business because I was enveloped in a social context during my undergraduate that showed me the importance of ethics. I didn’t just decide this on my own, a social context helped to create the conviction.

Facebook has now allowed us to treat every web page as a social object that may take a subordinate role to interaction. They’ve found a way to provide semantic relevance  to user’s online experiences (if you are my friend, we’re more likely to share the same definition of “great indie bands”).

In other words, Facebook has found a way to make interaction more important than the content itself by introducing a social context through interaction for every Yelp review, for every Pandora station, for every Mom and Pop website.

As Adrian Chan described social objects and interaction:

the interaction situates and contextualizes the object. Not the other way around. The object doesn’t tell us what’s going on, nor does it define uses and interactions. Those belong to practices — namely, practices in which objects are used.

Facebook just made the entire web more social not only by making it easy to share, but by giving it context.

Expect your experience of the web to get exponentially better—because its meaning will become oriented around you and your social connections.

This is good for business, too

Of course, we can’t forget the money.

All of that context means that retailers can

…imagine being able to pull a customer’s profile data [including their interaction history with your site]  when they visit your website. Then imagine that customer comes into your store and purchases something. You could make them a point of sale offer based on their profile data that you collected when they visited your site earlier that day. Mind blowing.

UPDATE: A word on Facebook’s AdWord Killer

In the same way that search results are based on counting and analysis of words in text, Google’s system of contextual ads is based on nearby keywords.

Imagine though, targeted ads based not only on keywords in text, but also on your past historical interaction (what you’ve “liked”) as well as your friend’s interaction (what they’ve collecteively “liked”).

Enter a new era of socially relevant ads across the web.

How does Google compete with that?

-Andrew

Image credit: jaycameron on Flickr. See original for copyright information.

Related Posts

1. The Open/Closed Fight is About Philosophy, Not Facebook
2. META Tagony (Guest Post)
3. 10 Steps to Writing a Popular Blog Post in no Time Flat

Beyond all of the iPad hype, beyond the lovers and the haters and the blenders, there’s a really serious question lurking, and Doc Searls nailed it in his brain dump response:

Do we want the Internet to be broadcasting 2.0 — run by a few content companies and their allied distributors? Or do we want it to be the wide open marketplace it was meant to be in the first place, and is good for everybody?

On closed systems

Searls, Cory Doctorow, Dave Winer, Mark Pilgrim, Alex Payne (cf. this post also), Tim Bray, and Peter Kirn, take the side of the open marketplace.

Predictably among the common complaints: the iPad is a closed system (one that is stacked to give the most power to whomever Apple wants).

Much like with the iPhone, all hardware and software must descend like manna from Cupertino—app approval, battery replacement, the Flash decision, the non-standard port, the fact that you have to sync everything through iTunes.

Sure you can write an open web app that runs on the iPad (because even a behemoth like Apple can’t close the open web), but you miss out on the efficiency and feature set that’s available in the native code.

And yes people are already working on a jailbreak, but if it’s anything like the iPhone, jailbreaking is technically illegal.

The concern is that the iPad, with its tightly sealed case and obscure software approval process, will greatly diminish tinkering. For Geeks, this is scary because without open systems that support, even encourage experimentation, we wouldn’t have the likes of Doctorow, Winer, Pilgrim…etc.

And the world would be a much darker place because of it.

As a society, we need more, not less, tinkerers.

2.0 Business Models

Perhaps what’s scarier than the closed box issue is the mentality of publishers. From the WSJ:

Magazine publishers see the device as crucial to their future as they scour for new ways to make money, with print advertising still under threat. Digital advertising has been a disappointment for many publishers, but with the iPad they feel they have a technology that best marries the splashy look and size of a full-page print ad with the cool interactive features of a digital ad…

Heaven help us.

Instead of shifting business models to embrace what the new technology enables (which, I would argue is simply increasing use of the open Web), companies are seeing the iPad as a digital way to keep doing what they’ve always done: as they “scour” to find revenue, they see the iPad as something that gives them “splashy look and size of a full-page print ad.”

We saw this same sort of thrashing when radio replaced vaudeville: people were scrambling, trying to figure out how to charge for access to radio programming (like people paid to see a vaudeville show).

But radio didn’t become vaudeville 2.0—it became its own business with its own business model based on ad revenue instead of charge for access.

Since we can’t force the internet to fit our business models, it makes more sense for us to change our business models to fit the internet.

The Ongoing Copyright Issue

Part of the reason that business models are so hard to change for traditional content companies—newspapers, magazines, book publishers, TV broadcasters, movie and record studios—is because they all still worship at the altar of copyright.

Look around and you’ll see them all trying desperately to bleed every last drop from the intellectual property they “own.” Stowe Boyd articulates the problem in his response to a recent NYT op-ed piece by Marc Aronson:

Aronson proposes a simpler model of managing the costs of copyright use [for digital rights], but never mentions creative commons, presumably because it is assumed that everything that can be copyrighted, will be, and those holding such rights will seek to maximize the amount of moeny [sic] they make from them.

I want to live in a world where the goal is maximizing knowledge, happiness, and understanding. And this isn’t it.

The Looming Battle

So here we have it, two issues that are inciting a coming battle:

1. An increasing acceptance, even celebration, of closed systems like the iPad.

2. The pervasive mindset that copyright should be handled like a proverbial gem, the only way a content company could hope to make money…because after all, it’s the way they’ve always made money.

So to go back to Searls:

Do we want the Internet to be broadcasting 2.0 — run by a few content companies and their allied distributors? Or do we want it to be the wide open marketplace it was meant to be in the first place, and is good for everybody?

I’m hopeful open systems will win out.

But that means crushing the idea of broadcast 2.0. That means that content companies are going to need to find ways to make money because of their content, not simply with it.

I’m certain that those brave content companies that open up their intellectual property will stand to gain immeasurably more than they stand to lose—they stand to overcome the problem of obscurity. Because the more open content is, the more it’s shared, the more ubiqutous it becomes, the more revenue they make as a product of scale.

And when content is open, we all stand to gain immeasurably more than we stand to lose—because money is no longer the goal. Our goal shifts to Boyd’s vision, “a world where the goal is maximizing knowledge, happiness, and understanding.”

What do you think?

Do you think publishers should open the gates on their intellectual property, making it less expensive and more easily shared?

How do you think they can make money if they do?

I’d love to continue the discussion…

-Andrew

Related Posts

1. Back to Basics: An Open Letter to Publishers
2. The Open/Closed Fight is About Philosophy, Not Facebook
3. Why the iPad won’t save Publishers (and what to do about it)

Photo Credit: Renato Mitra

With print sales falling faster than tween girls are falling for Justin Bieber, book publishers are getting a bit panicky. In not so modest desperation, they’re looking for a savior…

Enter the iPad.

Advertisers are lining up for periodicals, and according to the Wall Street Journal, breaking out their checkbooks for iPad deals. This has caused some minor elation, even among more traditional book distributors.

This, I think, is foolish.

Fact: the iPad won’t save publishers

This is a given. Publishers and news organizations need to get over themselves. Henry Blodget tells us why:

The iPad-will-save-our-asses craze is based on a single, flawed premise: Consumers want to read magazines and newspapers electronically the same way they have read them for centuries in print — in a tightly bound content package produced by a single publisher. But 15 years of Internet history suggests that they don’t.

I’m going to say that the same logic that extends to periodicals will be true of books: we assume that people want iBooks—which are presently just an emulation of a paper book with resizable text—when really, the value of a book is almost always wrapped more in its content than its container (almost always).

But what about sexy video integration? Won’t customers pay more for that? Again Blodget:

Some rich aesthetes might do that. (Some.) But the mass market won’t. The mass market will just save their money and read the publications in the iPad’s browser, where the publications are free and it’s easy to jump around to as many as they like.

The question then is, why can’t we do this with ebooks too? Put them in the browser I mean.

The iPad is a distraction

The way I see it, publishers really have only one responsible option at the advent of the iPad age: rethink how their content is formatted, defined and delivered.

Sure the iPad gives us living canvas we’ve only gotten glimpses of in the iPhone. But I don’t expect this type of media to ever completely replace the ubiquity of traditional text-based content that we pass so freely on the web (and on bookshelves) today.

After all, TV didn’t kill radio

The problem is that publishers are often stuck thinking in terms of “definite content” on the iPad. Craig Mod writes,

…Definite Content is not only aware of the page, but embraces it. It edits, shifts and resizes itself to fit the page. In a sense, Definite Content approaches the page as a canvas — something with dimensions and limitations — and leverages these attributes to both elevate the object and the content to a more complete whole.

And really the point is that for the first time, we’re able not only to have a sharp, 1-to-1 representation of a physical page, but we’re also able to think of the iPad as an, in Mod’s words, “infinite content pane.” Entire chapters can be in one vertical scroll, pictures can flow seamlessly in a horizontal line, etc.

We’re stuck on the content form for one device!

What we really need is something more flexible…

A case for formless content

IMHO, the path publishing should take is to go back to first principles—to understand what the Internet is good at doing and how people use it:

The Internet is good at copying and quickly transferring bits from place to place.

People are good at sharing content they like.

People don’t have a consistent experience in using the web: they use a variety of devices (computers, phones, tablets) with a variety of operating systems (Windows, Mac OS, Android) on a variety of browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox).

With so many ways to access content, it stands to reason that, as Brett McLaughlin writes,

The first group/publisher/company/person who moves away from the ebook and to content–content that can be delivered to a variety of media, digital and non-digital, with display and style applied separate from and after content creation–wins.

For publishers, it’s not about art: it’s about ubiquity

I’m looking forward to the aesthetic experience of the iPad.

But the masses don’t give a crap.

The masses demand something that can be easily accessed and experienced through a variety of devices. And more importantly for publishers, the masses demand content that’s easily shared.

So as we face the arrival of the iPad, with all of its multi-touch, high-resolution glory, I’m going to suggest that publishers also turn their focus to their greatest ally: text, and more specifcally, XML.

XML allows us to do precisely what McLaughlin suggests—separate our content from its form, reapplying format to meet various device specifications and delivery options for browsers (HTML5), first-gen ebook readers (ePub), etc., etc.

Our goal at this point should not be flashy presentation, but widespread distribution.

This path that McLaughlin sets out isn’t hard from a tech standpoint. We just have to cut through distractions like the iPad and do it.

What do you think?

-Andrew

Image credit: renatomitra on Ficker; see original for copyright info

Related Posts

1. Why “iPad” is a brilliant name
2. Back to Basics: An Open Letter to Publishers
3. Broadcast 2.0 v. Open Market

A little over a year ago I launched wordpost.org with an observation about the Bernie Madoff Experience. So I guess it’s birthday time.

If you still remember the banner above, bless you my friend.

And even if you don’t remember that banner, thanks for reading.

If you read this blog, I am deeply grateful. Thanks for trusting me with your time. You are the reason that I keep writing—even if this isn’t the biggest blog on the web, I’m grateful for each and every one of you.

If we haven’t connected on Twitter yet, it’s a shame. You can find me @wordpost. You can also email me any time at theword[at]wordpost[dot]org, or ping me on Skype (wordpost there too).

A couple of personal thank-yous

If your name happens to be Abby, Jessica, Shane, Beth, Colleen, Neal, Jason, Bradford, Cali, Carlos, or Rich, thank you especially. You’ve done something for me that I can only hope to repay someday.

If your name happens to be Jennifer, thanks for being so supportive of my crazy late-night writing obsession. You’re the best wife a guy could ask for.

So here’s to many more years of blogging

Hope to talk with you soon…

-Andrew

Related Posts

1. Free advertising on wordpost.org in 2010
2. Guest Post: Writing as a way of thinking

image credit: jhritz

Although I originally submitted a variation of post below as an entry for the Social Business Edge 4×4 Slam, I’m fairly certain the presenters for the event have been picked, and this particular entry wasn’t selected.

That’s okay. It just means I get to share it with you sooner:

Rethinking Product and Brand

Product has historically been branded as a combination of physical properties, supporting service, and symbolic value: the Lexus has leather seats, is covered by a substantial warranty, and perhaps above all else, is a symbol of status.

The commerce that’s followed has been built on quid pro quo transaction—a product made up of attributes, service, and symbol in exchange for capital. But in social business structures, it’s my prediction that this type of mechanistic exchange will no longer be the primary goal of business operation, but instead one intersection of shared time and meaning.

If connection to other people will replace our reliance on search to filter meaning, Bruce Sterling was right: networks will become engines of meaning.

But really, networks both online and off have always been engines of meaning—to be human is to be an agent of meaning. The creation and assignment of meaning is every bit as ubiquitous in the holy texts of the Torah, Bible, and Koran as it is in a fleeting exchange of a few tweets.

A cluetrain throwback

If markets are conversations, then meaning is the currency of social exchange.

The shift away from an economy based solely on the currency of products and dollars means that relationships companies have with their customers must transcend the industrial notion of customer relationship management (CRM). As a “management” tool, CRM exists in most cases to suck as much money from consumers as possible. This type of abuse will not be tolerated by social ecosystems.

The value of meaning exchange

As increasing connections facilitate streams of meaning flowing in and from social networks, we must stop pandering to the fickle attention spans of consumers.

Instead, acknowledging the non-transactional value of meaning exchange, we must rethink product creation all together. Our products will no longer be a judged on physical, service, and symbolic values alone.

Their value will also be determined by their ability to facilitate the creation and transfer of meaning.

Some may say this is an extension of a product’s symbolic value. I disagree. The fundamental question symbolic value asks is, “how do we leverage the interests or desires of some benefit segment in the market?” Nike doesn’t sell shoes. It leverages every teenager’s desire to fit in by selling cool.

The fundamental question social value asks is, “how and to what degree does my product enable my customers to come together, connect, and share meaning through some common task or conversation?”

Shifting focus

When we place our focus on increasing the social value of our products, transaction becomes secondary to enabling meaning transfer. Because the value of products will be communicated through every conversation they enable or support, the primary message to customers will no longer be “buy,” but “connect.”

The paradigm is shifting; conversations are already taking place. It’s our job now to create products that support them.

Your thoughts?

I’d love to know what you think about the economic consideration of meaning in the future of business.

-Andrew

Image credit: jhritz on Fickr; see original for copyright info

Related Posts

1. Simple: A Case Study
2. On Shifting Online Business Models: Death to Ads!
3. In the future, connection may be more important than products

It’s opened doors for some (e.g. Facebook), posted huge challenges for others (e.g. publishing), and disrupted all of our lives.

But the present experience of revolution isn’t new. Consider this from Cory Doctorow’s Content (links mine):

…forget all that business about how the Internet’s copying model is more disruptive than the technologies that preceded it. For Christ’s sake, the Vaudeville performers who sued Marconi for inventing the radio had to go from a regime where they had one hundred percent control over who could get into the theater and hear them perform to a regime where they had zero percent control over who could build or acquire a radio and tune into a recording of them performing. For that matter, look at the difference between a monkish Bible and a Luther Bible —next to that phase-change, Napster is peanuts.

Radio changed Vaudeville forever. The Internet and its support for social activity has changed our lives forever.

These are facts.

Every new and largely disruptive change will kill some business models and enable others. More facts.

So let’s stop saying, “this changes everyting.” Sure it does.

The more important question, as history shows us, is how will we adapt our business models to fit the revolution?

-Andrew

Related Posts

1. Broadcast 2.0 v. Open Market
2. On Shifting Online Business Models: Death to Ads!