Yes, and when we launch http://www.fastcompany.tv on March 3rd you'll see just how we can mix the two. Already I'm using this service: http://www.qik.com/scobleizer to get feedback LIVE WHILE I FILM INTERVIEWS from the community.
Yes, a publication can blend journalism - news and comment - with community - people, in their public and private aspects - but the user interface has to be quick and simple, but capable of fairly rich communication. One click to a video reply to a group, for example.
Definitely, but you still have some pretty big hurdles to jump over. All those editors that were schooled in the days of 'old' will definitely present a challenge to such ideas.
Perhaps there's a way to educate them to make some tweaks to the ways they write by having talks / webinars / etc. Or maybe have a renowned editor (with similar schooling experience) to speak out about writing for the Internet? This way, you won't have such a big age gap between speaker and audience.
I'm quite certain that you must blend the two to remain viable. The combined effect of the Industrial and Information ages has isolated each of us. Online social networking is simply re-allowing the interaction we all crave.
And as Microsoft's chief ad strategist Mike Galgon noted yesterday, journalism is "not worth zero". We need to be trust someone as an information resource.
Combining these two - probably across information sources - is a necessity.
Yes. More and more traditional publications will find themselves having to change their models to do so. Media has become a participatory tool -- equipping one's audience to become actors and speak to an audience of their own is smart because it guarantees are far more engaged and consistent community.
Sure it can. No one trusts journalism as the sole source of the news. The benefits of the community keeps the media honest. An example of this is http://www.gabbr.com where news agency based content is posted and the community is able to post additional content to support or refute the news agencies. This adds more sides to the story and takes readers closer to "the truth".
I'd say it can and it's going to have to. Their only saving grace is computers don't have the level of penetration that TVs do and high speed internet is still even further behind that.
Online journalism has the added benefit of instant gratification, instant feedback and adaptability. In the print world once it's on paper it's old.
sure, but first you have to jump over the words 'social network' for this to happen. I think that this is a great idea and some of what is put here should also hit the print. Then maybe even have some of the online monkeys featured in your mag (cept me I have a habit of rambling and breaking mirrors)( also I am not politically correct, I failed that class).
Anyways, then the world can see that there are lots of us socially responsible monkeys willing to do something to improve the quality of life for all not just some. Keep this rolling Lynne, you know from my emails to you my support is there
It can, if you proceed with caution. I find myself recommending FC to adult business students who have become used to interactivity in all their really reliable sources...including me. FC ought to be moreso. However, the danger with a "blogged" environment remains, as with talk radio, that not just the concerned and involved participate, but also the uninformed and compulsive malcontents. For this medium to maintain credibility as a source (and a forum), participants should cite their own credentials, or have them readily accessible to readers. Even at that we would all have to be straight up about it.
Better yesterday than today. Better today than tomorrow. You guys are late to class. Glad to see you finally join the camaderie of LinkedIn, Facebook, StartUpNation and a whole gang of early adopters.
Journalism and community; by introducing the vaguely French term rapporteur into my thinking 30+ years ago (UN's 7th Special Session, on the "New International Economic Order" ... the groundwork for what we now call "globalization") I came to an appreciation that I've been trying to share since.
Zero-sum games do not predispose folk to grok, so our techniques and methodologies are market-oriented, while computing for the public good is more about insight; "you can lead a person to grok, but you can't make them" is essentially false. Socrates showed that (Phaedrus?).
Fast Company should consider partnering with Fast Pitch! (arguably the best online business network for helping people promote their business). Here's a link to their site: http://www.fastpitchnetworking.com
They stack up pretty well against the big boys too (Facebook, LinkedIn) as far as how they help business professionals. Compare: http://www.fastpitchnetworking.com/compare.cfm
My two cents... Good Luck with the new business. I look forward to participating!
It could, provided some of the following questions are answered:
1) Will members be given a share of ad revenues because their contribution is increasing page views?
2) The lines between information, decision and action are blurring online. So beyond being a place for good content, will this new space allow people to take key decisions and actions affecting their business?
3) How could the Long Tail model be incorporated in this space?
4) What does Fast Company stand for? Is it just going to be a smart marketer of content or will it find creative ways to embrace doing and advocating business that is green, socially responsible and equitable to all stakeholders without alienating less-enlightened business people?
5) Will the name Fast Company continue to be relevant for this space?
6) Beyond ad revenues, what might be other innovative business models that could benefit the entire community to sustain itself?
7) What could FC do to help individuals and organizations whose voices are not being heard but are important to realize the Creative Capitalism that Bill Gates talked about at Devos?
I think if it is well executed then yes, it can work. A company has to look at how to properly engage it's readership without it appearing that they are taking the ideas generated by the readership and using them exclusively without reward. There needs to be some feeling of ownership amongst the contributors as well.
Can it create something better? Well, that's too subjective I think.
Can it create something useful and worthwhile to its existing community of readership whilst reaching out to a newer audience?
Sure - why not? This seems like a great start to me.
Web 3.0 would be *mature*, it will be where stuff simply works right. The elusive quality of disruption will itself be commoditized.
It should be very apparent on the informational level. For example, if Fast Company succeeds as a platform for providing high-level UGC in bulk, the business content vertical would consolidate.
Disintermediating content in this way will hurt online advertising, but will be the fulfillment of the dream of the Internet as an educational medium.
There is a serious race for being an authority going on across the net. When winners are declared the average quality of consumed content will go WAY up. It will change the world as we know it.
Content needs to shift a bit from being news-oriented to tutorials and canonical information compilations.
Yes
your approach is classic crowdsourcing
having professional moderators to inject content, guidepost discussions and stimulate ideas and discussion. See this excellent (3 part) article by Monica Hamburg
http://www.onedegree.ca/monica_hamburg/index.html
Cheers
Miro
I think so and for a simple reason. It is easier to self-identify as someone who reads a publication than someone who evangelizes a brand. That, mixed with the fact that everyone wants to feel included, to own a part of something, and you have media outlets offering perhaps the best opportunity to build branded online communities.
I see myself as a Fast Company reader. I see myself in that demographic, not because I fit their demographic profile but because people who read it are people I identify with and share commonalities with. These are folks I'd want to hang out with. As much as I like a certain brand of whiskey, car, restaurant or vacation spot, there is a higher chance that people who aren't quite like me there, too.
This is why branded microcommunities can and will succeed, particularly if media outlets get on the ball and offer them.
If you change the orange links to black and just underline them. They are titles and we know how to use websites. Don't worry we'll know its a link. The orange is really harsh please tone it down. Also "Report Content" is a little too much, I mean it looks like it is the most important piece of information and really its the least.
Besides that you could work on your navigation for the social networking aspects. It's two lines jumbled with icons. Kinda goofy. Your footer is a good example of how your navigation could work.
Absolutely. You are already doing it! I think it's a brilliant idea and one that will no doubt succeed. I look forward to expanding my network through fastcompany.com.
Yes it can, and it can also learn more from it's audience, fuel research, ideas, and stories.
The successful business will learn how to get the community to be part of the content creation, and how to monetize on top of this.
My answer is a resounding YES! Wisdom, knowledge and ideas are available on an infinite scale, but our individual minds can only contain and process so much information at a time. Each individual has finite restrictions on what they can create determined by their talents, experiences, current knowledge, etc. When we combine our individual assets, by voluntarily working together as a group, there are no limits on what we can create. Therefore, we are all smarter and capable of so much more as WE than I. Steve Jobs, Richard Branson and other well known creative types in business have created enormous amounts of value by being smart enough to tap into the WE. This is the beginning of another WEBolution and I am glad to be a part of it! Johnny B.
I think so, but they shouldn't try to compete directly with Facebook and MySpace. Keep it proffesionally oriented. Stay away from ad-spamming people's pages. Try to keep it subtle. Most of all, it will take 12 - 18 months for this to play out. Don't blow all your money up front on crazy marketing schemes!
The challenge is to let the community sort itself out into subgroups. Although we're all interested in innovation and working with passion, some discussions are too beginners-level. Differences in experience will drive participation.
Yes, I believe it can. Well, I do now when I read how Fast Company is approaching the challenge! I'm impressed these folks have been working on it for year, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes.
can you take a horse to the water and force it to drink ?
Its the same thing, a genuine thirst for collective streams and crowd sourcing needs to be embedded in the ethos of the business model. Without that, they are doomed! With online communities the business gives control to the general public and thats a scary proposition !!
40 Total
February 8, 2008 at 7:14am
Robert ScobleFebruary 8, 2008 at 9:03am
Richard BrayFebruary 8, 2008 at 10:50am
Ralphe ManzoniFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:03am
Robert SafianFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:24am
Gene LuFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:39am
Jeff SchmidtFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:46am
Martin NickelFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:47am
Saabira ChaudhuriFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:53am
Daniel O'SheaFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:55am
wood stockFebruary 8, 2008 at 12:15pm
Brad BowmanFebruary 8, 2008 at 12:37pm
Jon GosFebruary 8, 2008 at 12:39pm
Tim TymchyshynFebruary 8, 2008 at 2:33pm
maz iqbalFebruary 8, 2008 at 3:30pm
John KelseyFebruary 8, 2008 at 5:11pm
Jeffery TurnerFebruary 8, 2008 at 6:39pm
Russ WhitmanFebruary 8, 2008 at 6:42pm
Paul DenlingerFebruary 8, 2008 at 7:26pm
John McManusFebruary 8, 2008 at 7:55pm
Surojit NiyogiFebruary 8, 2008 at 7:59pm
Ben TremblayFebruary 8, 2008 at 9:10pm
Becca JeanFebruary 8, 2008 at 10:15pm
Ragunath PadmanabhanFebruary 8, 2008 at 11:40pm
Jason ShultzFebruary 9, 2008 at 12:10am
Michelle LeeFebruary 9, 2008 at 4:39am
Steve HuntFebruary 9, 2008 at 4:49am
yuval romikFebruary 9, 2008 at 4:59am
Akshay ShahFebruary 9, 2008 at 5:12am
miro slodkiFebruary 9, 2008 at 6:31am
Jason FallsFebruary 9, 2008 at 7:15am
Kevin MildenFebruary 9, 2008 at 8:21am
Susan MurphyFebruary 9, 2008 at 9:39am
Jeremiah OwyangFebruary 9, 2008 at 9:45am
John BallengerFebruary 9, 2008 at 10:30am
Michael MartineFebruary 9, 2008 at 10:41am
Sunil CiszewskiFebruary 9, 2008 at 11:19am
Theresa QuintanillaFebruary 9, 2008 at 11:26am
Graeme ThickinsFebruary 9, 2008 at 11:53am
Peter DawsonFebruary 9, 2008 at 12:38pm
Steve Wilhelm