The four tenets of Wikinomics are :
-Being Open
-Peering
-Sharing
-Acting Globally
Seemingly, these ideals are all positives. Openess and sharing. It's like kindergarten citizenship lessons for the Fortune 500. But the problem with them, and my problem with the book so far, is their lack of skepticism.
What if people don't want to be open, or share, or think/act globally? What if some people don't think that everyone's their peer?
Take AIG for example. Their recent bailout could be considered the application of Wikinomics on steroids. By accepting large amounts of federal funds, AIG was forced to share and be open, with their plans for rebuilding the compnay, what they did to get themselves, and the country, into the mess they're in, and about how much they were compensating their employees for the work they did.
The Obama Administration, by bailing out AIG, made every taxpayer feel as if they were the "peer" of the CEO. But instead of ushering a new era of amazing performance, everyone's mad. The public got more information than they probably needed, in finding out that rain or shine, financial markets do what they do best, pay a few people a LOT of money.
AIG execs were aghast at a public actually holding them accountable for something. And the government had to lay the mediator, in this new, open, "Wiki-ed" world.
Perhaps this example is an extreme. Actually, I know it is. But my point is this. Everything about WIkinomics isn't amazingly beautiful and palatable. And it shouldn't take 170 million dollars of bonuses to figure that out.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
On “Groundswell”
Groundswell tells its readers that new online social media is basically a jungle, and that corporations must navigate this terrain masterfully in order to survive. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and blogs shouldn’t be feared by out-of-touch, aging CEOs; they should be embraced.
Most of what I’ve read thus far seems like a pitch to fearful CEOs to hire Forrester Communications as consultants. It’s pretty convincing. “It’s a scary Internet world out there. We’re here to help.”
But part of the book’s approach annoys me. Li and Bernoff paint new online social media as a savage beast, one that can ultimately be tamed, but is still savage, perhaps even sinister, nefarious, cunning. Unlike traditional media, which is true, simple, understandable and helpful.
For instance, they write: “Unlike journalists, bloggers may sometimes mix fact and opinion, report rumors, and fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
As if journalists don’t ever do the same thing…
There are countless incidences of “traditional journalists” not doing their due diligence. Mixing fact and opinion, like in the NYTimes story about John McCain and a female lobbyist, which intimated that the two had a sexual affair. Or reporting rumors, like the one that said people were being killed and raped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. (That wasn’t true.) Or failing to disclose conflicts of interests, like the fact that Sanjay Gupta, CNN medical journalist, and formerly under consideration for US Attorney General, accepts speaking fees from many of the organizations he’s supposed to be reporting about fairly.
Often, this new media that supposedly has fewer standards than the old is doing what old media is too scared to. Breaking the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond story, or the Mark Allen/Macaca scandal. Letting America know that White House press correspondent Jeff Gannon was actually a Bush II-era Republican plant. Or running a tighter fact-checking organization than Dan Rather and exposing “Memogate”.
New media’s not the enemy. Sometimes, it’s journalism’s savior. I hope that Li and Bernoff make this point more directly before the end of the book. Even if they’re only getting consulting gigs from those scared of the new stuff.
Most of what I’ve read thus far seems like a pitch to fearful CEOs to hire Forrester Communications as consultants. It’s pretty convincing. “It’s a scary Internet world out there. We’re here to help.”
But part of the book’s approach annoys me. Li and Bernoff paint new online social media as a savage beast, one that can ultimately be tamed, but is still savage, perhaps even sinister, nefarious, cunning. Unlike traditional media, which is true, simple, understandable and helpful.
For instance, they write: “Unlike journalists, bloggers may sometimes mix fact and opinion, report rumors, and fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
As if journalists don’t ever do the same thing…
There are countless incidences of “traditional journalists” not doing their due diligence. Mixing fact and opinion, like in the NYTimes story about John McCain and a female lobbyist, which intimated that the two had a sexual affair. Or reporting rumors, like the one that said people were being killed and raped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. (That wasn’t true.) Or failing to disclose conflicts of interests, like the fact that Sanjay Gupta, CNN medical journalist, and formerly under consideration for US Attorney General, accepts speaking fees from many of the organizations he’s supposed to be reporting about fairly.
Often, this new media that supposedly has fewer standards than the old is doing what old media is too scared to. Breaking the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond story, or the Mark Allen/Macaca scandal. Letting America know that White House press correspondent Jeff Gannon was actually a Bush II-era Republican plant. Or running a tighter fact-checking organization than Dan Rather and exposing “Memogate”.
New media’s not the enemy. Sometimes, it’s journalism’s savior. I hope that Li and Bernoff make this point more directly before the end of the book. Even if they’re only getting consulting gigs from those scared of the new stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
