Before I begin to reflect upon the content in The Cluetrain Manifesto, I feel it is relevant to share I read the entire book on my Kindle, which I feel is direct result of many concepts discussed in the book itself. Not only are e-readers, tablets, iPhones etc. extremely portable, they bring the book to life. For example, I was able to highlight and take notes on specific quotes, upload them notes to my computer and save them in a Word file. I am also able to share my notes/highlighted material to Facebook, Twitter or similar social medias directly from the Kindle though Wi-Fi or 3G networks. I can also browse through all of my ‘saved highlights and notes’ on the Kindle, click on and open them to reach the exact portion of the book it was derived from. To me, this is where I see the biggest connection between the Kindle’s function and its ability to expand conversation and markets.
Just as Cluetrain describes the Internet 2.0 and the various ways in which it has changed the way businesses and people communicate, I feel the innovation of e-readers will revolutionize publication and medias – for the better. First off, I am able to download any print document instantly at a cheaper price than the hard copy, which in addition to saving money and time also saves paper. As mentioned in Cluetrain, users are always looking to make the most of their purchases and want to upload them on multiple devices. Because the Kindle is also an app, I can open any book downloaded to the Kindle on my phone, my iPod touch, or my computer.
I am not a mind reader, but I foresee the e-reader and similar tablet devices replacing print items, much like the Internet replaced its predecessor, the telephone. The e-reader/tablet series bring the overall experience of reading to an entirely new level. However, e-readers receive much criticism from ‘book nerds’, who feel digital books will never replace a physical book. This is where I see a fault in the e-reader, much like Cluetrain pinpoints customer service as a fault to the Internet. Is the replacement of physical books, magazines and newspapers the e-readers’ ‘fatal flaw’?
One obvious difference between reading a ‘real’ book and a book on the Kindle are the page numbers. I do not even know how many total pages Cluetrain is, but I could tell you at any given point in time a percentage I have read. However, I do not feel this hinders my ability to understand the content. We shall see how long I can survive with the Kindle before I run to the library or borrow a hard copy of a book.
In addition to my personal contribution to the conversation that is the Internet though use of my Kindle, I could not help but to compare concepts from Cluetrain to the evolution of the Facebook. What began as a platform for nerdy Ivy-leaguers to meet girls has become a company valued at $1 billion today. When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2003, it differentiated itself from the likes of MySpace, Friendster and Match.com because of its exclusivity – one could only have a Facebook account if they received an invitation from an existing user. This limited the Facebook users to college students, which is what made it ‘cool’.
Today, my grandfather has a Facebook (this boggles my mind) and uses it to connect with old friends, while my mom uses her Facebook to advertise and promote sales for her jewelry company. In a mere seven years, Facebook’s ability to build relationships between people via the Internet has exploded. Facebook has evolved into a site where users can utilize their relationships and networks for their own intentions and make conversations in specific interest areas.
One area in particular Facebook has expanded since its creation is in the, “‘attention economy’ that includes promotion, public relations, direct marketing, and other ways of pushing messages through media.” This is where I find that today’s Facebook supplements an incredibly different niche than it did when it was created. According the Cluetrain,
“…the attention economy will crash [because]…its detached from the larger economy where actual goods and services are sold to actual customers; its inefficient and wasteful, and a better system will come along where the ‘intention economy’ will outperform the attention economy.” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)
I would like to continue to follow the evolution (shall we say revolution?) of Facebook to see if the later portion occurs.
It does not surprise me hacking was involved to create Facebook. When Zuckerberg created Fashmash.com, the pre-cursor to Facebook, he hacked into Harvard students’ private profiles to extract information. Similar to Linux hackers, as discussed in chapter four, Zuckerberg created a “whole market” that is the Facebook today, through hacking; “whole markets can rapidly arise out of conversations that are independent not only of business, but also of government, education, and other powerful but hidebound institutions, in large measure to something hackers helped invent precisely for that purpose: the Internet” (Weinberger, et al. 2009). Is it ironic Zuckerberg was blogging while he was creating the Fashmash site? I don’t think so – he wanted to be heard, and he was; “the Internet is not written in pencil, it’s written in ink.”
Facebook appropriately recognized, “… everything that happens in a marketplace falls into just three categories: transition, conversation, and relationship” and thus surpassed its competition to become the dominant platform for relationship building. I am curious though, what made Facebook so appealing that allowed it to grow so rapidly? Why didn’t MySpace.com or Friendster expand in the same fashion Facebook did? While I am unfamiliar with the creation of the competing social networks, perhaps Facebook dominates because it focuses on conversation via ‘the Wall’ and surpasses the “fort business” concept, mentioned in chapter five (Weinberger, et al. 2009).
However, as I read recent headlines that Goldman Sachs has invested large sums of money into Facebook and the possibility the company will make an IPO, I am stumped on my opinion of Facebook – is it too dominant and has “lost control” over its niche audience or is the ideal example of “markets as conversations” (Weinberger, et al. 2009)?
No comments:
Post a Comment