Doc Searls on Producerism
OK, now that I have a minute, here's a few words about Doc Searls' Wednesday Syndicate Conference wrap-up keynote. Earthling has a great summary, so I'll just give my impressions.
The title of Doc's talk says a lot: The Return To Producerism, Reading Some Writing On The Web's Walls. Notice that "producerism" is a direct contrast with "consumerism." Anyone who's read Cluetrain or followed Doc's blogs/podcasts over the last eight years wouldn't be surprised by that. After all, the Manifesto's first line, above the fold, is:
we are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers.
we are human beings -- and our reach exceeds your grasp.
deal with it
Amazingly, that message is still unheeded. Even people as digitally sophisticated as those attending Syndicate still seemed mesmerized by the "attract, trap, retain, monetize" silo-envying mindset that still haunts so much of modern business. Corporate-speak applied to digital issues is still corporate-speak.
What's the alternative? How about something like, "entice, fascinate, repeat, share"?
Anyway, Doc spoke about the difference between the "static Web" and the "live Web." We all remember the static Web. It was the "place" where publishers put "content" and for the rest of us to "consume" it. (Steven Schwartz, the Syndicate speaker from Reuters.com actually talked about "constructing experiences" [like anybody gets to construct my experiences but me] that fit the ways readers "choose to consume digital news"...amazing!). The retailers put up catalogs. The professional services firms put up brochures. Bubble. End of Act I. Curtain.
Along came RSS. (Does anybody ever think to thank Dave Winer for RSS? Thanks, Dave.) And TypePad. And Flickr. And MySpace. And GarageBand. And iPhoto. And Technorati. And, "producerism" was born. Now, if your website is the same today as it was last week: here's your lovely parting gift, thanks for playing. If you're expecting people to "check back soon" instead of constantly informing them of what's new, thanks for playing. If you're not inviting (begging?) the people who visit your site to contribute...ideas, images, songs, anything!...thanks for playing. If you're speaking to people you care about (you do care about them, don't you?) in a dialect only understood by stuffed shirts with advanced degrees in pomposity, thanks for playing.
Producerism and the live Web aren't about "allowing" your customers to do things. It's about recognizing that you don't have the power to stop them from doing what they want. It's about recognizing that the world has changed so fundamentally that your very survival is now tied up with engaging everyone in your "value constellation" in authentic relationships (you do know what authentic relationships are like, don't you?)...not capturing their eyeballs, but making it important to them that they continue to be in a relationship with you; that their lives would be diminished if you weren't there. Like mine would be if Google disappeared. Or Apple. Or TiVo. Or Jon Stewart.
Now, as Doc pointed out, these aren't "brands"...as he said, "branding is for cattle, respect is for human beings." The idea that people "care about brands" is an abstraction. Human beings care about things that are meaningful to us; that's what "care" is. Meaning is co-constructed between ourselves and the "identity" that underlie a set of products and/or services...an identity which we shorthand under the label, "brand." So, Google isn't a "brand" as much as it is a continuously evolving relationship between a set of intentions (a way of life, if you will) on their side and on mine. When those intentions correspond, I fall in love, like I do in any relationship. When they don't, we call it a day and move on. That's why GM's having so much trouble; they betrayed us, and now they're calling to say they're sorry, and they've changed. Well, we say, "we'll see...", but we've still got a sore spot from where we bumped our heads on their last set of promises...
And now, I get to express myself about my side of the relationship. I don't know if anybody at GM really cares about what I say about my experience of the relationship, but all the smart companies do. Because the individual producer's voice has become important, maybe more important than at any time in human history. And, that's a big deal. I asked Doc about his thoughts about the broader social impact of the Web's second act, and he almost immediately started talking about education. The future of education, the most important activity we engage in as a society, is about to be disrupted...just as we've seen centralized, control-focused, prescriptive enterprises disrupted in practically every other domain. Imagine what producerism means in the world of education. If we really care about our children (we do really care about our children, right?) we'll do everything we can to hasten those changes.
Anyway, Doc's talk will be up in audio somewhere very soon, and you ought to find it and listen to it, 'cause he's talking about important things in clear terms that help us all see what's going on around us a little more clearly.
Oh, and since it's Friday, here's today's Featured Foto, Doc in front of a poorly projected slide (part of a whole series of nagging little technical snafus that plagued a valuable conference):
Comments