It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it

I helped run an interesting (I hope) seminar/workshop, yesterday, about the power of the network and the dominance of communities with people working on digital stuff.

And while the toolkit they had to work with faced certain restrictions, what was interesting to me was that if you give people permission to think differently, they come up with solutions that have real value for their communities - regardless of the technology available to them.

It isn't about the technology - it's about your view of the emerging socio-economic ecology and your place in it.

Alan Moore (Today life is always in beta) on Communities Dominate Brands talks about a project he's involved in - and a more extreme approach to development. In short hand: The best way of finding out what's wrong with your digital play is to get it built and see what the users think.

Traditional R&D is hung up on 'getting it right first time'.
There is a good reason why the traditional 'getting it right before we release' approach leaves the old guard flat-footed: It requires them to give up control - to release it from the centre to the edge.

You can't really learn where your connected community will want to take their community until you give them some basic tools to connect and share. Once the community is functioning then - and only then - does the R&D of the nobody-is-as-clever-as-everybody variety start.

I read some claptrap recently about how the best websites in the world have 'not been developed by committee'. The implication is that the strong leader, stick-to-my-guns approach makes for supreme winners.

The original kernel of an idea may well come from one person or from very small teams - but the execution as (exponentially growing) social phenomena has only been possible because of the engaged involvement of their participating communities. They have shared, marketed, developed, contributed to ALL the global digital successes.

To dismiss the huge role played by EVERYONE is, to my mind, tosh!
It's all about the Power of We - and unleashing it. See my white paper: The Power of the Network = The Power of We for more on that.

Can't make money with content? Make money because of it.

I read the following on 'Confused of Calcutta' (see recommended blogs, left)

"When something that was originally scarce starts becoming abundant, something strange happens. You find that you start making money because of that thing rather than with that thing. That’s the Because Effect." Click here to read it in its original context.

Based on Doc Searl's original thinking, is there a clue here as to what to do with all the expert-created content traditional media companies are heavily geared towards producing?

When it was scarce we made money with it. But now that great content is abundant, we have to move to making money because of it.*

In the case of Prince and his Mail On Sunday new album giveaway, he understands that great content (music files) are abundant. The scarce resource he has is his concert tickets. Because he has an abundant thing to give away, he is working on the theory that this will engage a level of fan commitment that leads to the purchase of concert tickets (and, presumably other merchandise).

What is the equivalent in the world of traditional publishing models?

There are authors (eg Cory Doctorow) who offer their complete novels for download and sharing. And they see the sales of actual books rise as a result.

I'd guess people who read the downloads become fans, who then evangelise others to buy. And some of the original downloaders decide that even though they've read the download, they want to own the product - to put on their shelf - to have and to hold. The content is abundant - the product itself is scarce.

So where does that leave your thoughts on what to do with all that content your media company is producing? Could a free DVD or download activate people to go the movies? Buy merchandise (games, toys, go to see the next film in the series..?) Maybe?

And where does this leave periodical publishing? Could it be as simple as putting all your content online as the initial draw for the formation of communities of shared niche interests (aggregation of vast audiences... if you must), leading to the opportunities of "We Media" (Communities Dominate Brands)?

The challenge here is working out, or even recognising, what the scare resource we have to sell is? Perhaps its experiences, events, engagement marketing opportunities, co-created services and products that will emerge as values from the network of the community we'll be part of.

New rules apply. Persuading your stake holders of the value of these may be the toughest part of all.

* Corrected with the kind assistance of JP Rangaswami - 'Confused of Calcutta'

The power of the network: For doctors and cops

Networks create value. It's the lesson of Reed's Law (Group Forming Network Theory, see resources) and one which is repeatedly being demonstrated by the success of numerous social networking sites.
Ubiquity, allowing the constantly connected community, makes the value still greater.
And often it seems we talk about the business benefits of this model - the way it enables a new ecology of co-creators - converged prosumers (see Media is the New Way of Doing Business).
But there are other, more transparently beneficial, areas the same thinking should be applied to.
I'm thinking of the medical profession, police forces - education, too?
Anyone going through medical treatment will know you'll see a succession of highly trained individuals. Typically you'll have to describe your symptoms over and over. Typically it gets written down on paper. And while professionals within a department or even at a certain strata within that department, may discuss case studies, they won't connect with others on the other side of the same hospital (or even 'above' and 'below' themselves) - who may have seen the same patient previously or learned something useful from another experience with a patient.
Imagine if doctor A had shared with doctor B about patient X. And symptom Y rang a bell for doctor B because he'd shared with doctor C on a previous occasion. Simply, allowing for emergent intelligence in the network should result in more accurate, swifter diagnoses. That cuts costs for the medical service and heals the patient faster.
Win/Win - new value created by the network.
If networks of professionals beat the best individual professional in predicting the stock market (see Reingold's Smart Mobs), shouldn't they also be better at healthcare? At policing? At educating our children?

End of the retreat: How media is the new way of doing business

Like many a traditional media company, the one I work for has been scratching its head over how to convert revenues as traditional revenues fall and digital ones seem more elusive than we'd like.

It's easy to develop a bit of a siege mentality.

If you're on that side of the wall - here's a message of hope: The retreat is over. The offensive has begun.

Why so positive?

A crucial penny has dropped for me (and if you're a regular reader/contributor to this blog you may well have seen me edging towards it in recent posts, before I worked it out for myself...)
It is this: There is NO business (model) in the world of We Species we now inhabit (see Alan Moore's work at Communities Dominate Brands) which does not benefit from the application of the ideas of We Media.

If all this sounds a little too much like buzzwords gone mad, let me explain.

Not only does my definition of what a Media Brand now is (ie a platform for a community of shared interests) apply to what we think of traditional media plays, it is also equally essential for any business model - full stop.

So the ideas encapsulated in this post 'Does a straightforward transaction site need a social play?' and in this 'A new definition of media brands'. can, indeed MUST, apply to any wannabe business model in this post mass-media/industrial age.

No longer are traditional media companies in retreat - now I see media companies as uniquely positioned to take advantage of the new way of doing business which is emerging from our new community dominated ecology.

In 'A new definition of media brands' I argued:

• A media brand is a platform for a community with shared interests.
• Focused on the interests of this community, we should aggregate content and offer services.
• Services are best delivered at the point they are needed – and that is always, always mobile!

I'll offer this update: "Focused on the interests of this global niche community, we should provide the tools to allow the co-creation and aggregation of content, products and services."

Media companies (and I am deliberately not distinguishing between new media (eg google) and traditional media (eg emap) because I think both have advantages) are uniquely well placed to benefit from the cultural shift towards community (evidenced by social networking etc).

Those with expertise in specialist niches may well be the best positioned of all (and yes, I have to declare an interest here - I am employed by a company with exactly that expertise). They are best suited to activating and engaging the long tail.

Why?

1. New media companies are brilliant at connecting (socialising) us digitally, traditional media companies have big audiences to activate. Traditional media companies have tons of insight to help identify the new business opportunities (by which I mean opportunities to help build and join with co-creating communities).

2. Combine this with our experience in building communities (not particularly connected ones in the case of traditional media, but communities none-the-less) and you have a position of significant advantage in the age of constantly-connected communities.

In a new economy dominated by social consumers (prosumers) the niche global community platform creators hold the cards.

As always your views, reactions and suggestions are welcome. Please share below.