Ad executive I used to respect just blocked me after I criticized him for wanting to block the voices on social media. These are the people who decide what media and what voices in social media get their support and do not. Looking for people who are too powefful? Start there.
I sat in a room with other ad execs who, with enough wine, admitted they don't want to be anywhere near news and don't care about supporting it. The only reason they care about news is their stock prices, they said. This is how they use their financial power.
What ruined the internet? The attention-based, advertiser-paid business model imported from mass media. Looking for whom to blame for a worsened net? Follow the fucking money. It will lead you back to advertisers.
Advertisers have abandoned media for programmatic algorithms, by no means only on social media. Thus they commoditize and devalue media. They abandon media. So media turn to paywalls, which redlines journalism for the privileged.
Every institution is challenged by change and showing its true nature, from media to marketing, from politics to policing, from retail to banking. A few who held power may survive if they change enough. The rest will all be replaced.
I held an event with media executives in which a leading programmatic ad exec scolded the media people for putting their inventory there, commoditizing themselves. Media people replied they had no choice because that's where the advertisers have put their money, into algos.
The lovely irony of advertisers moving to programmatic algos and otherwise abandoning media, especially news, is that they lose their clout, their power lunches, their access, their personal status as the sucked-up-to. Oh, how it hurts them.
I think there will be advertising in the future. I wrote in What Would Google Do? that advertising is failure--when a product fails to sell itself, when its customers don't market it--and so it will continue. But it must be reinvented and that won't be by the old ad guard.
Advertising is *way* behind because nobody wanted to tell the guy with the checkbook that he was wrong, behind, foolish. Now their beloved market is telling them that. And they hate it.
In WWGD? I wrote that marketing must change to become a means to listen to customers, not feed them messages. Hear the Cluetrain Manifesto: Markets are conversations. Advertisers--clients and agencies--still refuse to learn that because that would mean giving up power.
So, yes, I think advertising will continue but it is due for volcanic disruption. The old guard will be gone.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At #OxfordLibrary700, the NYT's Mark Thompson connects journalism and libraries as the late James Carey did: "in the wake of conversation we have need not only of the press but also of the library."
Thompson says when he arrived the digital transition at The Times was stalled and marginalized. "Digital people were the most frustrated people in the building." #OxfordLibrary700
The issue of how to make digital central is core to why so many legacy news organizations are stuck and overtaken by insurgents, says Mark Thompson. #OxfordLibrary700
The virus (and fights against masks and vaccines) are merely McGuffins, props in the crazy right's anti-intellectual effort to own the libs, the experts, institutions, authority: anger for its own feel-good sake. Tighting them over masks falls into their trap, misses the point.
How then to design journalism to counteract emotions and psychoses, not misinformation? That is the challenge. It starts not with fact-checkers but with shrinks and cognitive scientists.
If you reach for smelling salts over Germans "believing" Qanon you miss the point: It's not about believing that shit but about them saying "we" (uneducated white people) hate "you" (others and their allies). The only known solution: education. Does journalism have a role?
This "nation deeply divided" narrative is itself part of the problem. Politics is all about mediating disagreement. Nations are *always* divided, but with more nuance than media allow. This presumes normal is universal harmony: utopia. 1/
Part of the problem is media's myth of objectivity and objective truth, which they believe the nation should rally 'round and affirm, when media's real job is to listen to and inform the public debate that exists in divisions. 2/
And so the bad guys get to exploit media's catastrophizing of the public conversation, sewing division so media will panic and report that -- rather than the incompetence, corruption, and fraud of one "side" or the other. 3/
Much of the criticism of social media for not banning Trump is so UScentric. Imagine you run a company that also operates in countries with merely troubling heads over time: Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Singapore, Thailand (nevermind the worst., e.g., Philippines, China...) 1/
And then what does banning these bad heads of state accomplish? Does it protect their populaces from them? They have media. They have followers. Should not citizens judge their leaders? Do you really want social media companies to act as literal kingmakers? 2/
Thought experiment: Turn off Facebook & Twitter tomorrow. Is the world a better place? Have racism & inequity been solved? Or did you just waste time fighting a shadow puppet of the real problems in society? Technology isn't the cause anymore than printing was. People are. 3/
Send to every prof: "We write that reopening colleges and universities to in-person classes this fall is Unsafe at Any Campus, and sincerely hope that our Essay triggers critical thinking, evidence-based decision-making, and mindful reflection."
2: "Some colleges and universities may be willing to experiment with the lives of students, staff, local communities, & faculty. These essentially largescale biomedical clinical research studies have been neither approved, nor even reviewed by any IRB as is legally required."
3: "Rushing to reopen campuses offers only the illusion of safety. In contrast, offering an effective online alternative provides the reality of safety. Just because it is different, online education is not necessarily inferior."