Comments on: Packaged Goods Media vs. Conversational Media, Part One (Updated)

By: Ron Denholm

Ron Denholm — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:00:49 +0000

Hi John,

Thanks for revising this post. For readability it’s all about rating the thinking in your opinion (Coning Index) and where the thinking lays in the article (Parascape Index). See http://www.oracep.com

Your original post rates at 72
Your revised post rates at 73 with a Parascape Index of 2. This index measures the accessibility of your major thinking (1-3: one being best).

By: Gary Price

Gary Price — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:21:44 +0000

For important clues regarding the answers to the questions you raise, I'd encourage you to (re?)read Clayton Christensen's best-sellers The Innovator's Dilemma (perhaps better yet, his follow-on, The Innovator's Solution).

These books make a compelling case that industry incumbents generally cannot effectively adopt disruptive innovations (defined as innovations that either cater to new markets or the low end of existing markets). This stems from the institutional incentives that incumbent companies face, suggesting that swapping executives is not an effective solution.

The only effective solution? Create separate entities that are entitled to compete with the parent - something none of these media companies has been prepared to do yet.

The rise of Conversational Media fits almost all the characteristics of a disruptive innovation as defined in Christensen's research. I think that means Google is going to eat their lunch.

By: John Battelle

John Battelle — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:11:22 +0000

This is John Testing.

By: Fred Von Lohman

Fred Von Lohman — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:41:44 +0000

The only effective solution? Create separate entities that are entitled to compete with the parent - something none of these media companies has been prepared to do yet.

The rise of Conversational Media fits almost all the characteristics of a disruptive innovation as defined in Christensen's research. I think that means Google is going to eat their lunch.

By: Harry Wakefield

Harry Wakefield — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:07:16 +0000

It’s about economics (ad revenue) vs. relevance (interactivity/user content). How much interactivity are these media conglomerates willing to let through the filters, and would they do it all if it’s “at the expense” of advertisers and advertising revenue. We now know that relevance has value with users/ consumers (Web 2.0), the question is, is there enough net margin at the rendez-vous for traditional media companies that potentially have a lot to lose vs. start-ups that have way less to lose…

By: Fred Von Lohman

Fred Von Lohman — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:34:21 +0000

The only effective solution? Create separate entities that are entitled to compete with the parent - something none of these media companies has been prepared to do yet.

The rise of Conversational Media fits almost all the characteristics of a disruptive innovation as defined in Christensen's research. I think that means Google is going to eat their lunch.

By: Owen Thomas

Owen Thomas — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:53:42 +0000

Hey, John, it’s just plain “CBS,” not “Viacom/CBS.” They’re separate companies now. You might want to add the departure of Viacom CEO Tom Freston into the list, though.

By: John

John — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:53:00 +0000

How does BoingBoing fit into these categories? It permits no direct interaction between the editors and their audience or among audience members. The only “interactivity” that readers get is when editors occasionally select screened reader comments to publish (“Update: Jeb sez…”)- which is actually rather like the model used by newspapers and magazines. The website seems more “Packaged” than “Conversational” to me. Is this where you are going with this article?

By: eirikso

eirikso — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:17:41 +0000

Thank you for a very interesting post. A while ago I introduced something that I called "The Conversation Society". For the last couple of years we have been talking about "The Information Society" when describing what the internet does. Point is that the information society was something that Mr. Gutenberg introduced with the printing press 500 years ago.

The real revolution with the internet is that it is much more than a distribution channel, it's a communication channel.

I have tried to sum this up here:
http://www.eirikso.com/2006/10/30/the-conversation-society/

By: Nic Brisbourne

Nic Brisbourne — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:31:11 +0000

Great post John.

I think successful enterprises will increasingly delegate power to the edge and senior management's job will change from control to co-ordination.

You describe how that is playing out in three media companies that are (or should be) leading the way in this regard. If social media is about conversation it will only work if there is true delegation.