Comments by Jonathan Salem Baskin Subscribe

On 12 Reasons Why Good Content Doesn’t Matter to Your Company

Heather, out of the 500 "geeks who build and publish stuff online" with whom you rubbed elbows last week, how many of them had any any marketing experience (or direct responsibility for selling things on behalf of their clients or employers)?

On Herb Schmertz & The Huffington Post

I knew Herb and almost went to work for him in the early 80s. Imagine what his advertorial revolution could have prompted had the Mobil ads (or whatever) asked for comments and there'd been a network to manage the ensuing conversation (like via telephone and snailmail)? We professionals debated the placements but consumers consumed them, full stop. He was absolutely brilliant.

As for whether the idea that unpaid writers are any more authentic or 'unfettered' than the old fashioned paid kinds, I think you're a bit off the mark. Huffington Post bloggers look better because the bias and inepitude of traditional media (and of paid commercial speech) got too obvious; blogging is only better because the real media got so much worse. For me, that means there's still hope for true reporting vs. pretending that opinions are a substitute for facts.

On Social Media in 2011: We Still Have a Long Way to Go

Robin, what a great way to end the year! Your essay got me thinking about some Big Picture questions for 2011:

• Does influence really equal blogging? I know that the mechanism of social interaction values brevity and frequency, but I wonder if those qualities yield the sort of influence that affects decisions with real implications (and not just passing opinion). I often ponder the idea that social tech makes all media social, but that the rules for successful social tech don't necessarily translate, too.

• Will consumers continue to build their brands? Once the mask of a dour economic environment is lifted, I question whether consumers will either look for some of the older deliverables of commercial speech (i.e. tell me something that matters, don't just entertain me) or require something new altogther. Isn't it hard to find brands that have delivered social 'success' without some contextual support from old media (either news, as in the case of Ford, or paid, as shown by the Old Spice virals)?

• Are bloggers really the press? You're familiar with my personal bias, which is God help us if our ultimate record of news comes from the blogosphere and the affirmation of truth is relegated to the anonymous crowd. Could next year see the return of institutional authority (or some version of it), so less media brands embracing blogging and more blogging adopting some of the rules and true transparency of old media?

I don't know where I come out on these questions and the other ideas your essay prompted, but they're sure fun to contemplate. Great post.

JSB

On An Electric Corset: Are Today's Digerati The New Victorians?

Corrie, thanks for your kind words.  :)

On Company Towns Never Work: The Case for Third-Party Online Communities

Mark, thanks for your comment! At a minimum, I know that the market exhibits a lot of boosterism and hope that gets passed off as insight and strategy, whether intentional or simply the result of smart, creative people seeing things for the first time and thinking they're new. I've been analyzing historical precedents for social behavior for much of this year and the approach keeps blowing my mind. So much of what's going on isn't new at all (though tech may have modified and/or amplified it). A different perspective changes both what we see as well as how we respond to it...and, on the subject of branded communities, I think at least a few hundred years of history suggest they're not destined for greatness. ;)

On Company Towns Never Work: The Case for Third-Party Online Communities

Kenneth, thanks and I agree with you, though I'd add the idea of "purpose" to the content. My belief is that quality isn't enough; history suggests that communities need compelling reasons to exist. Now of course the "how" of that is the hard part! 

On The Dangerous Lure of Avoiding the Social Web

Douglas, thank you so much for such a thoughtful analysis of my essay! I think we agree far more than we disagree.

Also, just so you know, the headline -- “Dangerous Lure of the Social Web” -- wasn’t the original one; it was “The Danger of Dreams: Does the Social Web Distract Brands From Business?” I wrote it because my primary (if not only) point is that I think we need to talk more about the purposes of engagement, its measures, and the ripple effects it has on our business, social, and civil relationships overall.

My guess is that we would disagree during those conversations:

• Purposes: While the social web has “changed everything,” I’d maintain that it has also changed nothing other than modify and amplify behaviors that are centuries old. Your union example is spot on but not for the reason you suggest: unions were an incredible example of engagement and community united with purpose..only the social web overall is anything but. A better apples-to-apples comparison might be to see the web as an empty meeting room, available for rent to any sort of group or individual, and I’d argue that most of the renters today don’t even come close to “making or breaking companies.”

• Measurement: The funny thing about the 24/7 always-on web is that trends can be measured in nanoseconds, and even many of the loudest collective voices quickly dissipate into the void. I’m pained to find compelling examples of companies that have truly suffered from supposed dings to the online reputations and, if they have, the damages have been short lived. You mention customer service and I’ve thought long and hard on that one...only to conclude that most complaints are the result of operational business decisions that managements knew would leave customers wanting more (or different). I wonder if they’re no surprises, and the web simply lets them address the small percentage of outliers while lowering performance for the great quiet masses.

• Ripple Effects: I take issue with your premise that marketers used to “hide” behind logos and “just talk.” This is conventional wisdom these days only it’s simply not true: businesses always listened to customers, only some did it far better or more regularly than others, and there were a myriad of ways to have conversations before the Internet. A better historical context for this phenomena might get us talking more about the content of those newly-enhanced conversations vs. arguing that having them is the great opportunity of our times (which led me to the original headline). I do believe that marketers who focus on the magic of social and not the substance of operations are leading their employers or clients into a dangerous distraction or dream.

Finally, your point about conversations becoming “part of the public record” is profound and warrants more thought from all of us. The social web has blown up traditional conceptions of authority and privacy, whether at businesses, governments, or in the lives of individuals. Is the fact that conversations large and small are subject to forwarding and scrutiny a good thing? Do we understand more content even though we sometimes share less context? I really don’t know the answers to questions like these, but it blows me away sometimes that more marketers aren’t asking them.

JSB

On What's Wrong With Pepsi Advertising? $20 Million Social Media Campaign Won't Sell Soda Pop?

On Five reasons corporations are failing at social media

Scary.

On Is Second Life Dead?

On Is Second Life Dead?

I probably didn't state my position clearly: I want SL to be cool and relevant, but I think it's a terribly under-realized opportunity.  "Concurrent users" is a dicey stat that is open to lots of interpretation, and it needs to be correlated with other interpretable stats, like returning customers, transactions/customer, etc.  I love your reference to why corporations have failed there, and I completely agree...but we could probably have a lively debate about the nature and role of "community."  And I truly don't understand how education is somehow enabled in unique, compelling, or relevant ways via SL, other than the fact that avatars meeting in a room is really cool.  There's also a utility for people with physical limitations to "exist" there, which I think doesn't get enough attention.

Again, I'm all for SL thriving, but I maintain that, right now, it's still an idea in search of a purpose. 

On Ford launches the Fiesta Movement, but is it really just a campaign?

Also, re Terri's comment, I couldn't agree more.  Here's a post on it.