The Experience is the Brand

Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet

Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet

Mike Godwin outlines, in typically outstanding form, the battle raging over digital rights management. Only this battle is not between media bohemoths and supposed enablers of copyright pirates, but between Hollywood studios, and technology hardware and software companies.

Particularly interesting (to me, anyway) is this tidbit:

Toasters have their place in any kitchen. They’re great at one thing, possibly quite a bit more proficient than any other tool you might find adaptable to the purpose. But imagine if you were stuck with one, and only one, tool in your kitchen, and it were just a toaster. Think of the all the things you wouldn’t be able to make, that would be absent from your list of culinary choices. True, there are plenty of foodstuffs you can make in a toaster, specifically because various companies have all sorts of products that fit in a toaster.

Which is exactly the kind of model that many media and content companies seem to like. If everyone has some slight variation on a toaster hooked up to their television (a digital entertainment system) that can only take toaster-like content, then they get to excercise whatever degree of packaging control they prefer for their products.

What a dull and mind-numbing alternative to the rich cornocopia the Internet offers us today.

Mmmmmmm

Mmmmmmm

Textism has what seems to be a wonderfully scrumptious recipie for Glace de Viande. I want to try this some day soon.

License to Know

The discussion on the idea of a “License to know” rages on the Cluetrain list. I can confirm Doc’s comments regarding regulated speach in pharmaceutical circles. Not only is the environment highly regulated (ie, oodles of government codes standing between whatever the company’s “true voice” might be and the general public, but this environment is different in every country in which the company does business. This makes communication on the web a particularly tricky issue.

Doc Searls gets spammed

Doc’s getting spammed, as horrendously as the rest of us. But maybe he (and you) doesn’t know that there’s something he can do about it. And if this Wired story is right, there’s quite a bit of money to be made in getting spammed.

This, plus the discussion that’s going on on cluetrain….

This, plus the discussion that’s been going on on the Cluetrain list brings me to a point. I’m certain that it’s been made many times before, but I think it’s about time the issue was solved. Big media organizations, and even smaller ones, get listed as news sources at least in part because they carry some cachet of credibilty. Whether that credibility is earned in the first place, or maintained by upholding high journalistic standards over the course of their existence, in many cases it’s simply implied by the organization’s name. The Washington Post will get quoted again and again (as will Reuters, AP, UPI, etc.) because they’ve built up a reputation (and at times taken the effort to rebuild) for quality journalism.

Blogs are therefor at a significant disadvantage. A few (like Doc Searls’, let’s say) have earned their credibility over a long period of time. The plethora of blogs related to 9/11 pose an interesting dilemma. What fairly simple method is there of determining whether or not any one individual’s blog is credible? Some of the most relevant information, like personal accounts of the tradgedies, are going to be continuously viewed with skepticism as to their veracity. Personally, I hate to admit that brand awareness still deserves much attention these days, but with news you don’t really have much choice.

OK, OK, that’s not entirely true. Many blogs contain commenting features, so if an author is truly bullshitting his audience, and someone knows it, then it can become apparent. But given that Doc has posited “maybe it’s time to list them among news sources, no?” I think it’s important to ask, “how do we gauge their credibility?”

I think, by the way, that blogs and the commenting systems they use, as well as the interaction among many blogs at any one time poses a wonderful opportunity for providing some sort of “credibility index.” Maybe some sort of cross-blog slashdot-style community scoring system could help….

I've said it before, but

I’ve said it before, but I think it bears repeating that Warren Buffet is consistently capable of demonstrating the kind of open communication that is truly needed in a clued in corporation. In essence, he’s stated out-right: “We made a huge mistake. It was my fault, and it cost us billions of dollars. I’m sorry, it won’t happen again.”

Is there any other CEO or Chairman on earth that can get away with that kind of “oops?” No, and there’s a reason for it. WEB (the initials are a coincidence) has consistently spoken with voice, and special kind of voice for someone in his role. Honest, forthright, succinct and with good humor. There are many lessons that business can learn from the management of Berskhire Hathaway, but I think this is an especially valuable one.

Advertising Report

Advertising Report — Unicast Lands Patents, Promises “Action”

Let me see if I get this: Online advertising, with some notable exceptions has failed miserably. But some how, “standardizing the industry” is supposed to help the web “aggressively compete against other media, like television, for ad dollars.”

Nope, I don’t get it. And I’m a little sketchy on why they should have been issued a patent for what is, in my humble judgement, little more than a process for downloading images. Maybe they should get a clue.