March 3rd, 2006

Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

by

I’ve read A LOT about Web 2.0 — I haven’t seen so much Koolaid since I was at summer camp. And I’ve taken a stand that Web 2.0 is a long way from Media 2.0.

Kent Newsome has the latest antidote to Web 2.0 hype, invoking Monty Python’s Holy Grail to show that most Web 2.0 apps don’t have a “mandate from the masses.”

Alex Barnett, with the help of Mark Devlin, may have had a Web 2.0 “awakening,” meditating on the Web 2.0 Uncertainty Principle — the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is like the transition from Newtonian physics to quantum physics. It’s a Zen thing — it’s a different state of mind.

This is why I completely disagree with Jeff Jarvis and everyone else heaping praise on Tom Glocer, CEO of Reuters, who gave a keynote at the Online Publishers Association. According to Jeff, Tom has three ideas for how media companies can create value in Media 2.0:

Media companies will be a “seeder of clouds.”

The second role is to be a “provider of tools… We need to produce open standards and interoperability to allow” disparate people to create content of disparate types. “Let’s not make the same mistakes newspapers did with the protectionist online strategies that characterized Internet 1.”

The third role, he says, is that media companies will be “filter and editor.” He says that “the good stuff will rise to the top” online.

Here’s what I think of this — Tom Glocer has fooled 2.0 advocates like Jeff Jarvis into thinking he’s drunk the Koolaid, but the truth is, he hasn’t. This is Media 1.1 at best, and it still represents a formlua for perpetuating the entrenchment of Old Media at the center (which 2.0ers like Pete Cashmore accuse me of doing).

First, let’s get one thing straight – blogging is an evolution, NOT a revolution.

Bloggers are independent publishers, and the best bloggers are successful and effective because they do what the best Old Media publishers do — consistently provide quality content that is interesting and useful to their readers, and by passing along scoops from other media sources.

The ability to comment on blogs is no more revolutionary than the ability to comment on any online publication.

Blogging is only an evolution because the value is TOO distributed — blogging has dramatically increased the amount of quality content in the network, but nobody has yet figured out yet how to create an efficient marketplace for this content. This is why blogging hasn’t attracted a mass audience — because 30 million difficult-to-differentiate blogs is not a useful value proposition.

With that (contrarian) context, here’s why Tom Glocer is not really a revolutionary:

1. Media companies already seed the clouds — they create content that gets passed along by bloggers AND Old Media companies (and aggregators like memetrackers)

2. Media companies don’t need to provide the tools — thanks to the blogging software innovation, independent content creators already have the tools. Some Old Media companies, like The Houston Chronicle, are providing the tools for bloggers WITHIN their existing publishing infrastructure. And why would any bloggers go this route? Because Old Media companies still have the AUDIENCE.

3. Media companies are ALREADY filters and editors. So are bloggers. But this is still editing and filtering 1.0

So Tom Glocer hasn’t laid out a vision of a Media 2.0 — or a real media revolution. He’s laid out a DESCRIPTION of Media 1.1 as it ALREADY exists.

Media 1.1 is about empowering audience participation and independent content creation.

Media 2.0 is about creating an efficient marketplace for content that enables media consumers to find the highest-yield content from an ever increasing diversity of sources AND enabling content creators to efficiently collaborate.

This is why Media/Web 2.0 needs Marketing 2.0 — we need a new economic paradigm for valuing attention, which will create a new paradigm for value creation in Media/Web 2.0 and enable the “the good stuff will rise to the top,” as Tom Glocer puts it.

So what is this new paradigm? I don’t know, but if Alex Barnett is right, it involves letting go of the Old Media paradigm completely. It involves realizing that blogging is more 1.0 than 2.0, and that the economics of Web 2.0 are still utterly 1.0.

So open your mind, close your eyes, and chant: I am 2.0

Paging Werner Heisenberg.

UPDATE
I categorically apologize to anyone else whose name I misspelled. That’s what happens when you take the copy editors out of these system!

At the very least, Media 2.0 needs a network spell checker that can handle proper names.

Comments (51 Responses so far)

  1. Publishing 2.0 Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase I’ve read A LOT about Web 2.0 — I haven’t seen so much Koolaid since I was at summer camp. And I’ve taken a stand that Web 2.0 is a long way from Media 2.0. Kent Newsome has the

  2. Scott Karp : “Media 2.0 is about creating an efficient marketplace for content that enables media consumers to find the highest-yield content from an ever increasing diversity of sources AND enabling content creators to efficiently collaborate.” He

  3. few bookmarks tagged by people as Web2.0: YubNub – YubNub.org BlogBridge: Home Zend Framework Zend is a highly developed web application development platform based on php. XML.com: Microformats and Web 2.0 Publishing 2.0 » Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still I…

  4. of open Web solution which makes me think that Reuters has its head on straight with relation to Web media. Now… as Scott Karp pointed out , there’s nothing especially revolutionary in Reuters boss Tom Glocer’s speech. Nevertheless it’s good to see companies like Reuters talking the

  5. role, he says, is that media companies will be “filter and editor.” He says that “the good stuff will rise to the top” online.” 2.0 Edge Extremists will rattle on about how media companies don’t get The Edge, which seems like a Web 2.0 version of The Sun, that you can’t look at

  6. Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

  7. Scott Karp : “Bloggers are independent publishers, and the best bloggers are successful and effective because they do what the best Old Media publishers do — consistently provide quality content that is interesting and useful to their readers.”

  8. audio link. Definitely one of those items I suggest you read wearing your library lens. UPDATE (3:45PM edt) Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0 has some carping to do about Mr. Glocer’s speech. “Here’s what I think of this — Tom Glocer has fooled 2.0 advocates like Jeff Jarvis into thinking

  9. Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

  10. Era: His Way or Else Backfence Grows Some More in Its Backyard WAN Paris Report: Newspaper Revenues Online A week in London Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase To die with trees Taking Sunshine Week Online In the air, off the air More on CEO Bush’s Katrina Mismanagement links

  11. of open Web solution which makes me think that Reuters has its head on straight with relation to Web media. Now… as Scott Karp pointed out , there’s nothing especially revolutionary in Reuters boss Tom Glocer’s speech. Nevertheless it’s good to see companies like Reuters talking the

  12. Old and new media meet but can’t make connections (International Herald Tribune) ・Reuters on the role of big media in the Read/Write Web(Read/WriteWeb) ・Reuters gets it( BuzzMachine) ・Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase(Publishing 2.0)

  13. Publishing 2.0, 03.03.2006: Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

  14. Publishing 2.0 » Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

  15. a power shift more confounding than the explosion of choice. His puzzle: “If users want to be both author and editor, and technology is enabling this, what will be the role of the media company in the second decade of this century?” As Scott Karp pointed out (his blog is about the next era in publishing) Glocer’s answers to that question weren’t very revolutionary. But some of his observations were keen. “On the day the tsunami struck, Reuters had 2,300 journalists positioned around the world, mercifully

  16. Publishing 2.0 » Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase

  17. post by mattmcalister Wufoo online form makerpre-release as of 3/6/06, online form builder – post by sholman Thumbstacks online presentation builderalpha online powerpoint replacement – post by sholman Publishing 2.0 » Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase”Media 1.1 is about empowering audience participation and independent content creation. Media 2.0 is about creating an efficient marketplace for content that enables media consumers to find the highest-yield content from an ever increasing diversity of

  18. Typo on second ‘Alex Barnett’. Unless I’m Alex Barnett 2.0 ;-)

  19. Alex, it’s fixed. But I do think you’re very 2.0 :)

  20. hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  21. [...] Update: Scott is having a ahammmmmmmmm moment. [...]

  22. Typo on “Pete Cashmore”. And apparently I’m already 2.0. :)

  23. Pete, yours is fixed too. (And I also think you’re very 2.0)

    You’d think I purposely did this to demonstrate the need for copy editors. :)

  24. I sure hope those are *professional* copy editors. :)

  25. [...] Scott Karp: “Bloggers are independent publishers, and the best bloggers are successful and effective because they do what the best Old Media publishers do Ñ consistently provide quality content that is interesting and useful to their readers, and by passing along scoops from other media sources.”  [...]

  26. > we need a new economic paradigm for valuing attention

    I believe this is what Umair Haque is attempting to do over at bubble generation with his “New Economics of Media”. It involves the application of Network Economics in a field that has traditionally been dominated by supply/demand equations.

  27. [...] you say when you sound human.IMHO, of course.- Amy Gahran RightConversation.com Contentious.com #posted by Amy : 5:29 PM  [...]

  28. All this 1.1-2.0 stuff has confused the heck out of me :-) All I know is that the Reuters CEO has laid out a pretty good path for his company, if his speech is anything to go by. I for one never said this was “revolutionary” – clearly it’s not. But it’s a big media company showing that they’re making plans to fit into the new media world (I refuse to call it or anything else ‘2.0’ ;-)). Nice post though, except for the overdose of version numbers…

  29. [...] My old media buddy Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0 is pretty down on the recent remarks by Reuters CEO Tom Glocer, who spoke at an Online Publishers Association conference and had his speech blogged by Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine.com. Scott says media aren’t anywhere even close to Media 2.0 and that Glocer has “fooled 2.0 advocates like Jeff Jarvis into thinking he’s drunk the Koolaid” when he really hasn’t. [...]

  30. [...] Jarvis approves. Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0 does not. Here’s what I think of this — Tom Glocer has fooled [Web] 2.0 advocates like Jeff Jarvis into thinking he’s drunk the Koolaid, but the truth is, he hasn’t. This is Media 1.1 at best, and it still represents a formlua for perpetuating the entrenchment of Old Media at the center… [...]

  31. Media by Numbers…

    Another fine post from Scott Karp (and not just because I am mentioned in it!) I particularly like: Bloggers are independent publishers, and the best bloggers are successful and effective because they do what the best Old Media publishers do…

  32. this is one of the best insights on blogging I have read recently. Well done.

  33. Scott,
    Progress comes a step at a time. This is progress compared with other media companies and wire services I know. Is it the destination? Of course, not. We don’t know what the destination is yet. But I think it is better to note where progress is made and note what the next steps are rather than rejecting the steps that are made because they aren’t the final ones. Flies. Honey. You know.

  34. Jeff,

    I’m not rejecting these steps — they ARE good steps — but I think there’s a risk of confusing the steps with the destination.

    And I do expect more of a major keynote speech — to present a vision of where we might be going instead of a description of where we pretty much already are.

  35. scott,
    you’re bang on, particularly about the fact that finding quality blogs is still a huge challenge despite the efforts made by technorati (and its strange authority tool), blogdigger, ice rocket, etc. as a newspaper journalist, who has had a personal blog for two years, it’s fair to say newspapers are way behind the curve despite the blueplate special on the best blogging newspapers. in fact, i would argue newspapers are still trying to deal with the rapid news flow created by web sites – let alone the wave of independent blogs. reuters may “get” blogs but it doesn’t mean it is going to be able to success adapt and evolve – at least in the short term.

  36. [...] Scott Karp says we are still in the 1.0 stage, not 2.0. Well, who knows? [...]

  37. Don’t forget we also now have Brand 2.0!

    Despite the mockery of all things Web/Brand/Media X.X, I do think there are certain principoles of community, openness and trust which are showing through. All 3 are qualities which both consumers AND business can be epxected to uphold if they are to be respected in the wonderful world wide web 2.0!

  38. Scott,
    Glass house, man. I know you don’t like to mix blog and job but before you go getting out the snark gun on other guys doing their jobs, I suggest you ask whether every other media company, including thine own, is doing as much. Is Reuters the leader? Absolutely not. I can name lots of companies that are doing good things but, sadly, many more that are doing too damned little. But I will say that Reuters is doing more than many. That’s not saying much but it’s saying something. And it’s saying what I was saying: He gets it, he’s trying. Understanding that the goal is to empower the people is getting the point, in my book.
    You accuse me of saying that Glocer has drunk the Koolaid (to be accurate, by the way, it was Flavr-Aid). But why turn this into such a binary attack? Take the victories where we can find them, anywhere we can find them.

  39. Jeff,

    If Publishing 2.0 is a glass house, I will gladly smash all the walls — I didn’t build it to worship in it. You can drag my day job into it, but I’d much prefer have a debate on the substance and the merits. And regardless, I speak for myself and myself alone. (I don’t own a media company — just a blog.)

    And speaking of glass houses, I would point out that you tote one of the biggest snark guns around when it comes to criticizing media companies who are struggling to figure it out. Part of what bothered me about your post, as constructive as it was, is it that it was so dissonant along side some of your ripping and tearing posts. But what I admire about those sharp edged posts of yours is that you’re pushing and challenging and dragging forward — it’s tough love.

    Look, I have nothing against Reuters and nothing critical to say about where they are in the learning cycle. As you well know, there are some deeply entrenched economics that make it much harder to actually do what you can envision.

    My beef is with the vision thing — I just don’t see it yet. And I certainly don’t have an answer myself.

    It’s such a messy, tangled web at this point (no pun). I think I would respect more a media leader who doesn’t claim to have it boiled down to three easy steps, but instead gets up and says — We just don’t know yet. Here are some baby steps we’re taking, but like everyone else, we’re feeling our way in the dark.

  40. Scott,
    I don’t think that Glocer was saying he’d solved everything. I quoted the bits that I thought were significant. Maybe I didn’t quote his caveates. And, yes, the glass house is relevant in this case because you are comparing his words to his company, and so if I were Glocer facing this criticism in person, I’d ask — to paraphrase the late Mayor Daley of Chicago — what trees you’ve planted. Wouldn’t you? I note that you’ve now taken out of your “about” page the name of your employer. Is that transparency? Is that fair to Glocer, who should be able to compare your words and corporate deeds? Is that 2.0 of you? I understand why some people do that, but if you do, then I think you should be prepared for people to ask. I’m no friend of Glocer’s, never met the man. But I don’t think you were fair to him and, along the way, you insulted me — acting as if I’m an idiot for praising what he said. You say he “fooled” me, which makes me the fool. Further, when it comes to snarking, I think the snark bullets are better spent on those who are not even trying, and there are plenty of those. You say now that you have “nothing critical to say about where Reuters is inthe learning cycle.” Sure didn’t sound like that to me. If, in the end of your response above, you say it was about the style of how he expressed himself, then I’d say the same to you.

  41. [...] But everybody has an opinion. Even me. [...]

  42. Jeff,

    You appoint yourself the arbiter of who “gets it” and who “doesn’t get it” — I said I think you’re wrong, that Glocer doesn’t “get it” as much as you give him credit for. And you’re insulted by that? Talk about glass houses.

    If I thought you were a “fool” or an “idiot,” I’d say “Jeff Jarvis is a fool and an idiot.” But I DIDN’T say that, because I DON’T think that. Perhaps I would have done a better job walking on eggshells if I used the more polite “I believe Mr. Jarvis in this instance was incorrect in his analysis of the speech by Mr. Glocer.” Give me a break — you throw rocks day in and day out — I hit you with a pebble and you’re insulted?

    I’ve inadvertently insulted people before, and I’ve always felt terribly about it and immediately apologized. But in this instance, you’re putting words in my mouth, and I’m offended by your righteousness.

    And let’s be clear — I critiqued what Glocer said. I didn’t critique Reuters or its actions. This blog is open — he’s free to come and debate ME if he wants.

    Since you seem convinced of your moral high ground regarding disclosure, why don’t you help me out with this. I had originally intended to put the following in my About, but chose not to. Was that a mistake?

    NOTE: I removed the name of my employer because I was too often being cited as the company’s public representative, which I’m not — it’s not a secret where I work, but it’s my hope that the views expressed on Publishing 2.0 can stand or fall entirely on their own, and not as a function of my resume. Whatever risk I assume in publishing my view should not be shared by my employer, who has no association with this site. While it may be useful to know that I work in publishing, if you’re inclined to agree or disagree with me, you should do so regardless of what my day job is. (I’m no a lawyer, so that’s my best shot at a disclaimer.)

    I take comfort in what I found in your About: “Now he is working as editor of a new news startup, still in stealth.” I’m sure it would help your readers to know all about your startup, but I guess you just have to protect those corporate interests.

  43. Jeff:

    It pains me to say this, my friend, but what Scott points out in comment #35 is also what disturbs me.

    First, it doesn’t matter who ‘gets it’ because getting it isn’t doing it.

    There’s the old story about Steve Jobs after the first Macintoshes shipped and became a big hit. He was looking for what to do next. His executives were coming to him and saying, ‘You should hear this guy’s great idea because it’s genius’ or ‘You should hear that guy’s great idea because it’s genius.’ But Jobs said, ‘No, you folks don’t understand: Having great ideas isn’t genius. True genius ships.”

    Grocer can say whatever he wants (particularly if his speechwriters tell him hip stuff to say), but the proof is in the pudding and there’s no pudding there yet.

    Second, arbitrating who ‘gets it’ and who doesn’t is so old media. This isn’t People or Vogue magazines or a discussion about Clara Bow.

    Whatever ‘it’ might be best for Flickr, MySpace, or BoingBoing might not be the best ‘it’ for Reuters or (god forbid) the AP. There are a few old media companies that will do quite fine for their consumers in 2010 what they did in 1910, and there also are a few startup companies that way. Contrarily, there are a few old media that must radically change from what they’ve done up until now and also quite a few startups that must. And there’s a continuum in between those poles. There is no one way — no ‘it’ — in all this.

    And, third, why do you launch ad hominen attacks (as started in comment #30)? Counter his arguments, not him. Any time you have to retreat into ad hominen attacks, it signals that you cannot counter what he has said. Counter the message, not the messenger.

  44. [...] APara os interessados, leitura essencial o post Web 2.0 And Media 2.0 Are Still In the 1.1 Phase, de Scott Karp. [...]

  45. [...] Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 completely disagrees with Jeff Jarvis and everyone (and there were lots of everyones) saying that Tom Glocer has fooled them into thinking he is on their side. Mr. Karp points out, rightfully I think that Glocer’s points are a formula for more of the same–old media as it already exists. Perpetuating the entrenchment, that’s he calls it. Scott Karp is 100% right. [...]

  46. [...] On to Scott Karp’s comments that I mentioned earlier . . . This is why Media/Web 2.0 needs Marketing 2.0 — we need a new economic paradigm for valuing attention, which will create a new paradigm for value creation in Media/Web 2.0. [...]

  47. [...] On to Scott Karp’s comments that I mentioned earlier . . . This is why Media/Web 2.0 needs Marketing 2.0 — we need a new economic paradigm for valuing attention, which will create a new paradigm for value creation in Media/Web 2.0. [...]

  48. [...] Tom Glocer said some things to the Online Publishers in London. Almost everyone, except Scott Karp, Dave, a few others, and me, thinks he said good things. I wish I could agree with them. The truth is I can’t. I’m not sure he said anything at all that was good. [...]

  49. [...] Tom Glocer said some things to the Online Publishers in London. Almost everyone, except Scott Karp, Dave, a few others, and me, thinks he said good things. I wish I could agree with them. The truth is I can’t. I’m not sure he said anything at all that was good. [...]

  50. [...] Key thoughts from Scott Karp on the Reuters issue here.   [...]

  51. [...] I gave Reuters CEO Tom Glocer a bad rap the other day for sounding like he had New Media all figured out. Contrast Glocer’s rhetoric (we will be a “seeder of clouds”) to the down-to-earth realism of McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt, reflecting on the recently accounced purchase of Knight Ridder: Gary Pruitt, the chairman and CEO of Sacramento-based McClatchy (MNI), sounded convincingly authoritative when he answered a reporter’s inquiry about the speed with which newspapers’ classified ads will move to mobile platforms like cell phones. “In five years,” he said, “17.2% of all classifieds will be delivered on mobile devices.” [...]

  52. [...] the final ones. Flies. Honey. You know. Scott Karp – July 11th, 2006 | Email | Print | Link Article Tags: Blogs, Publishing 2.0, Bloggers, Blogging, Corporate Blogging,Risk [...]

  53. [...] His puzzle: “If users want to be both author and editor, and technology is enabling this, what will be the role of the media company in the second decade of this century?” As Scott Karp pointed out (his blog is about the next era in publishing) Glocer’s answers to that question weren’t very revolutionary. [...]

  54. [...] His puzzle: “If users want to be both author and editor, and technology is enabling this, what will be the role of the media company in the second decade of this century?” As Scott Karp pointed out (his blog is about the next era in publishing) Glocer’s answers to that question weren’t very revolutionary. [...]

Add Your Comment

Subscribe

Receive new posts by email