LATEST ENTRY

LINKS | Noah Brier

The Internet Is Subtly Changing X

November 11, 2009 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 4 COMMENTS

The always-wise Russell Davies hits the nail on the head with this one: "As a semi-professional prognosticator I'm always tempted by the rhetorical power of statements like The Internet Is Killing X. But, of course, it isn't."

We are all tempted to make statements like this (or at least I know I am). But they're almost always complete oversimplification's of what's really going on, which tends to be that the internet is changing X, maybe to the point where it's unrecognizable, but most certainly not dead. This also is part of a larger thought I've had lately, which is all about us saying things that are wrong because they're easier to say than actually thinking. I don't know what to call this behavior (other than lazy), but I feel it constantly. I feel like yesterday's post about the "changing state of communication" was a perfect example. For all the lip-service we in the marketing industry give to the power of word-of-mouth, when push comes to shove we tend to suggest "blogger outreach" even though we collectively know that if not executed properly it's a fairly useless endeavor. (Okay, this point might be a little different, but I think there is some connective string there.)

I for one have been struggling with this "internet killing" point with my thoughts around serendipity. The easy explanation is that the web is killing serendipity, pointing us to exactly what we want when we want it. But it's certainly not that simple, as I run into more stuff that I wasn't looking for than I could ever imagine without the help of the internet. I guess the problem is that "the internet is subtly changing X" doesn't make for as good a title.

Tags: internet, serendipity


PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1reeegan

great thoughts. I've been thinking along those lines, in that I continual try to put things in black and white (which I think is a natural human response). It's more natural for us to be definitive in our thinking, therefore if we believe Y is "winning", then X is losing and will soon cease to exist. Ultimately, though, we miss the grey area, the part where that thing "losing" thing mutates and changes into something sometimes subtlety different other times radically. Things rarely definitively die, they just change.

LenKendall had a smart post touching on this a few days ago as well... http://bit.ly/dVwG7

November 11, 2009

2Ryan Waggoner

These things are all related. We say things like "X is killing Y" or "This product is an iPhone-killer" because we live in an increasingly noisy and complex world where people's attention is more and more scarce. So we do whatever we can to try and snag their attention for a second, like exaggerating, or being controversial, or using violent imagery in our descriptions of two companies battling for a bit of market share :)

The end result is an increasingly noisy marketplace and an arms race for who can be the loudest and most attention-grabbing. I do think this kind of thing creates a "market for quiet", with blogs like zenhabits picking up steam, but I digress.

I think the real solution for content producers or marketers caught in the middle is what it's always been: produce great stuff, develop relationships with your customers, and make sure they're happy. It takes a lot longer to grow this way, but it's a much more sustainable strategy for success.

November 11, 2009

3Abe

How about "the internet is internetting X"?

November 12, 2009

4Taylor Davidson

I'll agree with Ryan that it's easier to capture a bit of attention by being controversial and exaggerating, and add that the punishment for being wrong is minimal, forgotten; but the rewards for being right are much, much higher. I'd bet if that risk/reward ratio was a little different we'd take a little less risk and be a little less lazy.

But it'd also be a lot less fun...

November 17, 2009