Baby You Can Sell My Carr - But Do Me A Favor & Sell It Online

In order to begin to figure out how to transform the "logic" of business to accomodate the new customers we now live with, there is one premise that you have to trust me for - if you haven't studied it (though you can see the results of my research if you follow this blog): This new generation of customer has very different sets of requirements and a very different way of thinking than prior generations of customers did. Over the next few years, they will become increasingly volatile and increasingly militant (in a nice not-pick-up-the-first-handy-weapon-sort of way). As the boomers retire and the older generations pass on, and the Gen Xers and the echo-boomers/millennials/Gen Yers begin to take over the markets and the world, the nature of these markets will continue to morph toward fulfilling the demands of this intelligent, knowledgeable, self-sufficient customer matrix - operating from a new sort of outlook - one that has not been seen much in the past.. As human beings, these customers will do one of the things that all humans do best - form communities for social purposes - which human beings do because it is their nature to do so. The best example?

How many of you live so far out in the country that you have absolutely no neighbors?

Raise your hands.

That's what I thought.

But unlike neighborhoods with homes, some of those communities are online and they are germinating rapidly, virally, as the use of the web evolves. Of those online presences, those matrices, some socialize a business activity - perhaps a group to discuss the strengths, weaknesses, or value of some type of goods or services or both. Other online communities provide the resources for teams of like thinkers who never have met and don't work for anyone else in the group, but who are engaged in producing something, like a game modification or an apartment design. Maybe they are discussing how to handle feline asthma (1500 in that group) with their cat owner experiences and the advice of several qualifed vets all intermingling so that some sense can be made of this potentially debilitating condition(see below on professionals). Some go a lot further, such as Second Life which I discussed a few days ago, an experiment of thousands of people and their avatars in a real version of virtual commerce.

Ultimately, the online community and the joint activity that is fostered by the existence of these virtual organizations is there to create value in some way for some purpose. I doubt anyone would dispute the importance or value of that, would anyone?

Surprisingly, yes.

Apparently, there are skeptics who spend a fair amount of time decrying what seems to be a significant factor in the thinking about new business models - i.e. the online communities, the value of non-professionals as trusted sources, and consumer/producer co-created valueOne such skeptic is Nicholas Carr who was mentioned in a blog entry a couple of days ago by a respected CRM thought leader and very good buddy of mine, Chris Selland, in a short piece yesterday on Carr's critique of Wikipedia. Web 2.0 and whatever else Carr could squeeze into his article..

What Carr does in this article is make some valid statements but does it with a major sneer (BTW. the reference links in his quotes are mine, not his. Check them out. Heh.Heh.).

My problem is this: When we view the Web in religious terms, when we imbue it with our personal yearning for transcendence, we can no longer see it objectively. By necessity, we have to look at the Internet as a moral force, not as a simple collection of inanimate hardware and software. No decent person wants to worship an amoral conglomeration of technology.

And so all the things that Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? Is there a counterargument to be made? Might, on balance, the practical effect of Web 2.0 on society and culture be bad, not good?

He then goes on to the "brass tacks" as he calls it - an attack on Wikipedia as the product of amateurs. He claims its unreliable at a factual level and uses an incorrect entry on Jane Fonda and another small part of one on Bill Gates as proof. He says he wouldn't recommend it as a source but uses it for a "quick gloss on a subject" - which means he uses it as a trusted source for a quick gloss on a subject. He then goes on to attack the glorification of amateurism over professionals, blogs vs mainstream media, open source software vs. nothing in particular, says that Wikipedia trumps Encyclopedia Brittanica which is created by professionals I presume is the underlying concept) because it is free, though it is slipshod ("free trumps quality all the time."), He then makes a very arrogant statement - "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening." Wow. Not even just the statement, his whole tone really sucks.

Counter-Rant

Okay, let's take a few things into hand here.

First, I agree with Nicky-boy; there is nothing transcendant about Web 2.0, nor is there anything religious about it. Nor are ecstatic visions about it meanlngful, though sometimes that's just someone waxing enthusiastically about something they really, really, really believe in to such a degree that they can't express themselves in rational terms. So what? Good for them. But Carr is right to the extent that the case of Web 2.0 shouldn't be overdone.

But even with that being true, his other attacks are not vaguely even fair. Online communities are good things because they are able to extend the concept of human communities in new ways, whether or not there is direct human contact or not. Think about it for a minute. Creating communities are not exactly unnatural acts to human beings. Most of us have apartments and houses in one version of a human community. The online communities are a different form and a different scope and have different purpose, but still are part of the desire for we infinitely social creatures to communicate with each other at many levels. What makes them fascinating, is that the online communities also represent an expansion of trust in a unique way - people with the monikers online of barkingtree or viscioussid are trusted sources typically when you are looking for knowledge of something that you are specifically seeking - even though all you know of them is their online handle and their opinion. Additionally, their collective opinions are given individual weight by the reader of those opinions. So what passes for trust these days is something a litle different than it was in the past. We no longer are relying on long personally interfacing relationships to establish trust. We are assuming trust and weighing the value of each instance where trust is assumed - which makes the collective wisdom of the online community extremely potent. But it still is a matter of choice. We as individuals choose to believe what the opinions we read there tell us.

Is there an increased risk in that assumption of trust? Yes, no doubt at all. But if you believe that the species is composed primarily of good individuals, its the risk that you're willing to take. Do you have to take that risk? No, its up to you to weigh the consequences of the possible failure of that trust. But more and more, people are accepting that level of "trusted opinion," especially in the realm of business. Its a matter of trusting your peers to tell you what they think of something rather than the producer and advertisers of that something. Its why the review sites like Epinions are so popular. They are convenient wateringholes for discussion about things that you and your peers might actually use. Doesn't that make the users more "professional" in the knowledge of the product than the producers who might not even use it?

What Carr does that is particularly peevish is do "professional vs. amateur" comparisons - for example, bloggers are compared to journalists of the "regular" press (like the NY Times) and Wikipedia is compared to Encyclopedia Brittanica. All for the purpose of comparing "professionals" with "amateurs." He, in a really snotty way, make it quite clear he prefers the company of professionals thank you. Well good for you, Nicholas Carr.

A number of things continue to make this document and its "voice" really irritating. First, who's to say that amateurs have nothing important to say or nothing of value to create? Other than Carr of course. You've seen the incredible value of what "amateurs" create in the PC/video gaming world in the blog entry I did late last month. Remember Counterstrike? The undaunted Nicholas Carr continues this amateur attack with a cynical reference to the open source software world:

The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. We see it in their unalloyed praise of Wikipedia, and we see it in their worship of open-source software and myriad other examples of democratic creativity

First, there are a myriad of companies who are probably doing more a lot more good for the economy than harm - professionally of course, with the democratic "amateurism" of open source; like salesforce.com with its open source-like AppsExchange or SugarCRM built on open source or the creators of Apache, Linux, MySQL, etc.

Second, in his comparison of the "flaws" of amateurism, is he forgetting that professionals have a different set of flaws and because they still are typically more trusted than amateurs - and, I agree with him here, should be, their flaws are even more devastating - remember Jason Blair at the NY Times - a professional? One example of many on how much the trust in the professional media has eroded, due to a few bad seeds in the generally honest mix.

As far as Encyclopedia Britannica goes, I worked for them and even wrote some articles for them many years ago. What I saw go on there for factchecking was not exactly confidence inspiring when it came to the "professional" compendium of human knowledge.

Now that I think of it, using the Carr ProAm Cynicism Scale, I have a blog and I write for the mainstream CRM media (e.g. CRM Magazine, CRMGuru, CIO Magazine) and I have a degree in Journalism from Northwestern University and I worked for the press as a managing editor of a small newspaper for awhile and at Encyclopedia Britannica. So, am I an amateur professional? A professional amateur? Would he hang out with me? Gosh, I hope so. I'm presuming he means an amateur is someone who is working without pay or training and commenting in an area that he/she isn't experienced in? I don't know really. What I do know is that people like Nicholas Carr have some valid things to say but say them in a way that makes them invalid to me as soon as they open their virtual yaps.

Its not like I entirely disagree with him. think that there is no need to glorify those who he calls amateurs or the Web 2.0 or Wikipedia or open source. I think that I would trust a professional in some fields more than an amateur in others. For example, when discussing business strategy I would trust a pro more than someone who has no knowledge of the field I want to hear a strategy in. But when it comes to the use of a product or a service or ideas on how it can be used, I'd trust those who see value in improving their own use of it, not just selling it. I trust the NY Times more than a random blog but not much more - because the NY Times reporters and especially the editors have a position to write about and make decisions about what is in the Times and what isn't every single day. But the NY Times is the newspaper I love to pieces. When I don't read it, I miss it.

But what I trust has nothing to do with amateur or professional anything. I trust what I think is valuable to me and after unconsciously or consciously weighing the risk inherent in the decision to trust the source, I make some decisions based on that trusted source as a factor.Amateurs and professionals all have bias and agendas because they are people and all human beings have bias and agendas. There is plenty of room on the planet for both amateurs and professionals - and both groups obviously bring different and valuable benefits when their thinking is used well. And in the words of the immortal Jerry Seinfeld "there's nothing wrong with that."

Expertise is not a criterion for creativity - only a focus for it. We trust who and what provides us with value so that we can create it in return. Amateur or professional. And there is no reason to sneer at that, sir. Choose your poison, but don't poison everyone elses.

Comments

[Chris Selland]

Hey Paul - thanks (as always) for the link. I agree with you about those who sneer as to the value of 'amateurs' completely and fully. See http://reservoirpartners.typepad.com/reservoir_partners_enterp/2005/08/the_great_unwas.html from a few months back. As to Carr, yes his attitude can be a bit tough to take, but generally I do usually find myself agreeing with him.

Having said that, I've been continually disappointed with Wikipedia. My point wasn't so much a dispute as to quality (Carr's point) - instead what I was calling out is the fact that the agendas of the authors too often come through. Not sure if you read the John Siegenthaler story that I linked to, but it's pretty frightening. Someone wanted to engage in character assassination, did it anonymously on Wikipedia, and now it's all over the web.

Everybody has views, opinions - and agendas. Obviously those views, opinions and agendas find themselves in the blogosphere - that's what makes it great. But is Wikipedia part of the blogosphere? Or is it supposed to be a 'trusted source' of information?

I think there's a very interesting parallel debate to be had here as to the new role of the 'media'. The New York Times clearly has a political agenda - as does the Wall Street Journal. And in both cases I'm OK with that. But at some point, the editors of those publications need to control how far that goes. Where there's NO control, there is risk - and the 'self-correcting' nature of wikis only works to a point.

It's nice to believe that the primary incentive most wikipedia contributors have is spreading knowledge. But I fear that the greater incentive - spreading opinion, innuendo and even misinformation - runs the risk of swamping those good intentions.