Customer Interaction … To a Fault?
Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog.
“On today’s Internet…amateurism, rather than expertise, is celebrated, even revered....The professional is being replaced by the amateur, the lexicographer by the layperson, the Harvard professor by the unschooled populace.”
This, in case you’re wondering, is a bad thing, according to Andrew Keen’s new book “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture” (Doubleday/Currency). And yes, most of it is just as apocalyptic as its subtitle indicates.
Keen, a former digital media entrepreneur, has emerged as one of the go-to guys for criticism of Web 2.0, which he rather famously called in a piece for The Weekly Standard a “grand utopian movement” similar to “Communist society.”
Okay, so he can be a bit grandiose. But one needn’t be a card-carrying Luddite to be given at least a moment’s pause by the implications of an “all free, all the time” society when it comes to the question of copyrighted materials – and you’re not an anti-democracy wingnut if you feel that just because everyone’s entitled to an opinion, that doesn’t mean they need to give it on everything.
Professional debate, Keen says, is one thing, but the Cult of the Amateur means that anyone with a PC and an axe to grind can come off as an informed, important voice these days. To take the point to an obvious – if still amusing – extreme, one Amazon reviewer posted that, following Keen’s premise, “This book review on Amazon, written by someone who is not a ‘trained professional’ reviewer, has no right even to exist.”
There’s power, and then there’s too much power. We’re all familiar with the scenario wherein someone spends untold amounts of time and money inventing, streamlining, or at least tweaking a particular product or service, just to have someone else come along and blog (or, maybe even more worryingly, post on the company’s own website) a scathing review of the new/improved item in question.
It’s possible, of course, that they’re right. But if you’re in possession of reams of market research, testimonials and other data that say otherwise, what recourse do you have?
“The Cult of the Amateur” came up more than once at last week’s annual conference of the American Society of Business Publication Editors in New York. During one panel discussion, attendees were posed with a question: if your company’s website or blog is being consistently bombarded by a particular user for what he feels is a sub-par product – to the extent that he seems to be inhibiting or even harassing other users – should you ban him from your site?
Where does your company draw the line – if at all? Is the power of the PC becoming an absolute – and, if so, does it really matter?
Feel free to share your ideas and experiences; we promise we won’t ban you from our site.
Thanks, John -- great examples. Eager to see what others think of the Mullet Strategy?
What? No mention of the Mullet Strategy?
"The biggest sites on the web are all embracing the "mullet strategy" - business up front, party in the back! User generated content is all the rage but most of it totally sucks. That is why sites like YouTube, MySpace, CNN, and HuffPost are all embracing the mullet strategy. They let users party, argue, and vent on the secondary pages, but professional editors keep the front page looking sharp. The mullet strategy is here to stay because the best way for web companies to grow traffic is to let the users have control, but the best way to sell advertising is a slick, pretty front page where corporate sponsors can wistfully admire their brands."
Yes, they can be trusted. Anything short is at best socialist and at worst fascist. Much of the time, it is those that want to set the rules that can’t be trusted.
I think the laws of netizen society should be similar to the real world democratic laws. In most democracies, there are very few laws that "check" free speech. This is a good thing.
So let the free-for-all happen as far as the exchange of ideas is concerned. And where there are laws to protect free speech in the real world, they should be maintained in the virtual world. If I slander you online and you can prove that it is slander, I should be penalized (public flogging is my favorite form for such behavior).
The best part of this Wild West is that I can't get shot on the street for calling someone an ignorant yellow-belly cave-dweller. In other words, I don't need rules and regulations to keep me safe from physical harm (since no one can “touch” me on the Internet), and there are plenty to keep me safe from verbal falsehoods.
I'm with you, John. Everybody was an amateur at one point (well, maybe not Bill Gates).
But to the greater points...Keen asks, "Can we really trust society to behave properly in the Wild West culture of the Web 2.0 revolution?"
He adds, "We need rules and regulations to help control our behavior online, just as we need traffic laws to regulate how we drive in order to protect everyone from accidents."
Accidents still happen, of course. But what do you think of his overall thesis -- that an unchecked netizen army can be nothing better than a free-for-all?
I agree with Shub. Since when does all good information come only from "Professional debate?"
The US founding fathers were just amateurs (none had founded a nation before) but were ordinary citizens (OK maybe not so ordinary) who debated in taverns and living rooms. The refined ideas were then published on the blogs of the time, small independent newspapers, which were shunned by “professionals” as scandalous rags (published by the likes of such amateurs as Benjamin Franklin).
Web 2.0 is a fundamental shift in society. The "tavern" is virtual and "anyone with a PC and an axe to grind" should be allowed to participate freely. The net-izenry must 1) be trusted to listen to all uncensored voices, 2) judge for themselves the validity of the message and the messenger, and 3) be allowed to voice their own thoughts. Doesn’t sound like Communism to me.
Your blog here is a case in point. You were allowed to post your opinion (please don’t be offended if I ask if you are any more “professional” than Shub or I). Shub and I were able to post our rebuttals without having to present credentials or be professionals. The silent majority will read and judge both, and hopefully formulate more ideas or refine ours. God bless the United States of the Internet!
As for the harassing net-izen and whether he should be banned from the site offended, I imagine Samuel Adams was thrown out of his fair share of Tory Taverns. Let the companies throw their detractors out. If their message is true and resonates with a large enough populace, it will resurface and be ratified in potentially more damaging locations like Epinions.com. Rather than face that bad publicity, the company’s best option is to show its professionalism in its response (as you did in your response to Shubs post) and trust all of its customers to choose the better party. Like a pompous criminal, the lesser professional will undoubtedly tip their hand, especially if they post multiple times. The ultimate professional will look even more so by responding intelligently and fairly.
-John-
(Just an ordinary net-izen)
Good points all...but can a company rely on the premise that all of its customers can distinguish between an informed opinion and a not-so-informed one? A habitual repeat poster may make his bias and shortcomings obvious -- or he may, through his multiple posts, retain a veneer of expertise.
Was the spread of literacy a bad thing?
Was the advent of the internet a bad thing?
#1 -- The cult of amateurism will just raise the bar for professionals.
#2 -- We should also respect the intellect of netizens to distinguish between postings of someone with just access & someone adding value by sharing a perspective / thought / ideas.
#3 -- You also need to question whether a poser will survive the test of time?