Disqus - Latest Comments for Richard stacy

Re: The Future of Facebook

Richard stacy — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:56:12 -0000

You may well be right in your predictions about where Facebook is heading. However, I have an uncomfortable feeling that this is a direction that may seem logical from an advertising perspective, but chasing the ad dollar is ultimately what will destroy most of the services that are out there.

For example: Google thinks the future lies in expanding across more devices in order to collect ever more data on individuals. This is technically feasible but socially unacceptable. YouTube's new initiatives are focused on making it a better viewier / advertiser experience (like a conventional media platfrom) rather than a better total user experience - forgetting that it is ease of upload and distribution that is why YouTube became succesful. Thus as soon as a more user-friendly distribution platfrom emerges (as it surely will) YouTube will be finished.

The winner, for me, is going to be The Thing that understands the total requirements of a "Social Media Citizen" not biased via the view of the citizen as consumer of traditional one-to-many mass messages. The fabric of social media is not made up this type of communication - no-one yet really seems to have developed an understanding of how to work with the fabric of social media, rather than print an old business model upon it.

Further thoughts along these lines here http://richardstacy.com/2009/06/23/google-v-fac...

Re: The Future of the Social Web: In Five Eras

Richard stacy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:59:25 -0000

Agree very much with your five steps on how brands should prepare - especially point five - I spend my time trying to get organisations to understand that the game has shifted away from their corporate site and the days of walled gardens are over. As I summarise it - advantage and value no longer lie in Channel, they lie in Content, Conversation and Community. Understanding that is the main brand challenge.

I tend to look at things from a history / information rather than technology perspective - and see three phases. Phase one was when information was completely tied to (and controlled) by its means of distribution. Phase two (the start of social media) was when content became more liberated as the means of distribution became more accessible - but place of distribution (e.g. social network) still shaped the information to an extent. Phase three will be the world where information is totally separated from its means of place or distribution. It is the world of the connected crowd and we are starting to see its dynamics in twitter usage - especially the TagSpace concept. A genuine TagSpace lives across all current and future social networks http://tinyurl.com/bnlk6r

Wish I was Forrester client so I could read the report in full!

Re: Expulsion of the Social Media “Gurus” –Impacts of the Recession

Richard stacy — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:45:41 -0000

What is needed are social media counsellors - because that's what most organisations need to help them work out how to adjust to the new reality. That can be a "guru" - in fact its what gurus do well (if they genuinely are a guru of course)

Re: Who do people trust? (It ain’t bloggers)

Richard stacy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:22:37 -0000

Trust is moving from institutions to processes. Hence - I don't trust bloggers (institutions) but I do trust blogging (process)as a way of giving me accurate information.

This shift in the source of trust is one of the most important characteristics of the social media revolution.

Re: The Need For the Social Media Manager

Richard stacy — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:33:41 -0000

The new structure of marketing and communications is really what this is all about - and it is an interesting topic. Ultimately, I think all in-house marketing and comms departments will reform around The Story Department and The Conversation Department.

Re: Are we moving too fast?

Richard stacy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:44:44 -0000

Its tough - but personally I rely on people like you not sleeping so that you can tell me what's going on. In return I provide a modest and simplified link blog (http://richardstacy.wordpress.com) for others to benefit from my experience of benefiting from your experience. And so it goes on ... its what social media is all about!

Keep up the good work.

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