Re: Two sides of ‘influence’

Richard stacy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:41:22 -0000

Dennis,

True - it is not a generational thing which is why I also dislike this way of describing what is happening - it makes it seem like a passing fad.

We are dealing with the legacy of something that is 600 years old - and these things don't change overnight - but they do change. The interesting thing is that very few people are able to really understand the nature and direction of the change because they are always looking backwards and using the past as their frame of reference. This is why so few people are actually analysing this shift in terms of a Gutenberg and post-Gutenberg world.

Re: Two sides of ‘influence’

Richard stacy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:23:13 -0000

Dennis,

I share your frustration at the extent to which the whole web2.0 debate has become dull and boring and/or dragged into purely a marketing focused conversation.

My particular frustration is that this whole web2.0 / social media things is way too geeky. Most of the people who were in Berlin and are at the bleeding edge are far to obsessed with the technology. There are no-where near enough people looking at the big picture - which for me is very simple. Since the invention of the printing press the mass distribution of information became possible but was expensive. Therefore the flow of information in our society was institutionalised. In fact most of the institutions that have emerged since Gutenberg have been formed out of, or depend, on this basic principle. However, it now costs nothing to distribute information - and this fact is eroding a basic foundation that supports the way society operates. Almost any institution - certainly any institution whose function is the mediation of information - will be affected. And this isn't just the "traditional" media, a bank, for example, is basically an institution that mediates information between people who have money and people who want money.

This whole thing (whatever we decide to call it) is therefore a once in 500 year shift which has the potential to be as revolutionary as the original Gutenberg revolution, which after all gave birth to the Renaissance, science and the concept of modern democracy. Yet I find no-one really looking at this thing I call the Gutenberg Principle and investigating the extent to which it has shaped our society. I see almost no debate about the likely shape and form of society where it costs nothing to distribute information. No-one is looking at defining the concept of a social media citizen - what their behaviour might be and what tools they might need. Instead we are all talking about networks and platforms and gizmos. We have to get some non-geeks into the debate.

Perhaps this debate is going on somewhere and I haven't found it. If you know of it - please let me know.

Re: Huggies Targets Social Media Moms With New Campaign

Richard stacy — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:01:11 -0000

This is what I call a web1.5 idea. Essentially a standard mass marketing idea crunched into a web2.0 platfrom. It may work better than trad 1.0 digital, but it won't work as a true social media idea

Disqus - Latest Comments for Richard stacy

Re: Two sides of ‘influence’

Re: Two sides of ‘influence’

Re: Huggies Targets Social Media Moms With New Campaign