Community Is About Enabling People To Be Heard; And You Need Community To Succeed Online
from the enabling,-not-silencing dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in Paul Ford's recent essay entitled The Web Is a Customer Service Medium, which I've been thinking about the past few days. I think the title is somewhat misleading, and might have turned some folks off, but I believe there are (at least) three separate (but related) points that Ford makes that are worth highlighting and discussing. And they all touch on points that we regularly discuss around here. Let's take them in order. The piece starts off with a response to the standard Andrew Keen/Nick Carr-style elitism about how the web is so full of riff raff that it takes away from the value of the really smart people (i.e., the people who matter). He highlights how these people who play up some sort of cultural elitism as being important, and how it's missing the point of the web:I call the people who say such things the Gutenbourgeois. They believe in the cultural primacy of writers and editors and they feel good--even a bit superior--about working in publishing. They believe it is their job to drive culture forward. The web, they are a little proud to admit, confuses them. They say: "We gave away all those short stories on our website but it sold no books." Or: "We built a promo site for our famous author who does the crime novels and it was just a total boondoggle with no traffic." Or: "The magazine can't get enough pageviews, even after we hired the famous blogger. Now management wants to make people pay for access."This sounds all too familiar, though in other areas we deal with. We'll discuss a musician successfully building up a business model involving a huge following and community -- and we'll hear from someone saying "but I use Twitter and I didn't have the same success, so you're wrong." The problem is that they're doing cargo cult copying -- copying the superficial aspects (using Twitter, hiring a famous blogger, putting something out for free) without really understanding the underlying reasons why communities form online. They just see that others have done one or another of these things, and think that this single action is the key step, rather than recognizing what it takes to actually enable a community.
"Look," I say, "maybe you're doing it wrong."
"But," they say, "we tweet."
Why? Well, that's where Ford's second key point comes in. The web is often seen through the prisms of what came before. As each new industry jumped on the web, it tried to reinterpret the web in its own image. As Ford notes:
A medium has a niche. A sitcom works better on TV than in a newspaper, but a 10,000 word investigative piece about a civic issue works better in a newspaper.Again, this is a point we've discussed before (less eloquently), in noting how the entertainment industry keeps trying to remake the web into a broadcast medium, when it's power is really in the fact that it's a communications medium that also does other things (such as broadcast). But if you ignore the communications element, then you're in trouble. Of course, too many people think that adding a communications element means "just add comments." But, that's (again) a form of cargo cult copying. Yes, comments can be a component of building a community, but comments alone do not a community make.
When it arrived the web seemed to fill all of those niches at once. The web was surprisingly good at emulating a TV, a newspaper, a book, or a radio. Which meant that people expected it to answer the questions of each medium, and with the promise of advertising revenue as incentive, web developers set out to provide those answers. As a result, people in the newspaper industry saw the web as a newspaper. People in TV saw the web as TV, and people in book publishing saw it as a weird kind of potential book. But the web is not just some kind of magic all-absorbing meta-medium. It's its own thing.
And that brings us to the third key point that Ford raises: the one thing that the web does really really well is answer the "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" question.
"Why wasn't I consulted," which I abbreviate as WWIC, is the fundamental question of the web. It is the rule from which other rules are derived. Humans have a fundamental need to be consulted, engaged, to exercise their knowledge (and thus power), and no other medium that came before has been able to tap into that as effectively.This is such a good point that cuts through to the heart of why so many people have trouble understanding what makes a real community online. It's not just about turning on a set of technologies or "using Twitter," it's about actually enabling people's voices to be heard. I imagine some will still get this point confused, but there's a difference between allowing people to speak and helping people get heard, and I believe that's the key that Ford is getting at with his WWIC concept.
There's more in Ford's piece in terms of how people might go about setting up these sorts of communities, by thinking of the web as a customer service medium, rather than a publishing medium, but I actually think that point isn't as strong as these first three. Still, the whole thing is worth reading, especially all of his examples of sites that have succeeded by focusing wholly on the WWIC issue. While there were certainly a lot of key points in the article that I'd thought about separately, I hadn't really put all of them together, and it's definitely making me think about how best to enable successful communities online.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: being heard, community, customer service, enabling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Communities form online because people of "like" interest get together. Simple as that. If I wasn't interested in IP I wouldn't be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMHO
eg A television show many people like is popular, but not a community. However, the unaffiliated fan-club for same said show could be considered a community...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
Understood. I would have thought it obvious that "here" mean't a place to converse :) Next time I will be clearer :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So lets force all ISPS to a 25GB CAP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catering to the needs of the community is hard work. They're always asking "Do this now!" and "Sign my autograph!" or "You should do this in your next movie!".
And then they'll ask for more. The community will have the audacity of remixing songs! Of mashing um videos on youtube! And FanArt? The horror! The common man outdoing me, the artist!? Unthinkable!
If only there was a way to bring back the good old days. Where artists crapped something and gigantic crowds would rush to be the first to get it. Those ancient times where the artists, newspapers and producers controlled what people thought and what they would buy next.
Ah, I miss the good old days...
/Sarcasm! Yikes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An OLD analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1
You've got to provide quality content, obviously, but you also need to follow up by giving people reasons to care about what you're doing and inspire them to spread the word.
Techdirt often calls out stupid behavior and lapses in logic, which both informs and inspires its more rational thinkers to take some sort of action to restore balance- as in Dan Bull's videos, for example. Mike also jumps on the comments board and engages further which helps readers feel like he cares (whether or not this is true is another issue). Then they started CwF + RtB which connected with fans on a whole different level: merchandising and experiences- taking readers' appreciation of Techdirt off the screen and into the real world. Everyone wants to be heard, but if Al doesn't like writing comments, he can wear a Looooooots of T-shirts logo on his chest and start a conversation that way. The goal is to find ways to expand the conversation, not control it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #1
You should consult with the newspapers. That is a lesson they need to learn. Even when they do "Allow" commenting on articles it is so severly censored that most people with discenting view points stop commenting. The big newspaper sites seem to only allow what fits their agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/12/same_shit_diffe.php for more details!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. One of the rare times when I actually agree entirely with Nick Carr.
Read the end. He points out that things have absolutely changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]