I agree, except that there are some nuances to the "user" distinction that help to better shake apart the previous paradigm. I think "reader" connotes a uni-directional process of information reception. "Consumer" is a more active descriptor than reader and one that evokes a clearer relationship for targeting products to demand markets, but it still carries too much baggage related to the role of passive reception.
I think the Times is trying to adopt "user" to 1) change their own internal expectations of the part their customers/readers/consumers have to play in the product, and 2) change the self-perception of the reader such that they see their own role as active and participatory.
Users can make things. Consumers take things off the shelves and don't expect to put anything on them. If the product is gone one day, the consumer moves to the next brand on the shelves. But, if they start putting their own product on the shelves under a particular brand, they get more involved and have more at stake if that brand fails.
I might describe it as the "I am Spartacus" effect (have you seen that movie?). It was a very successful part of the Obama campaign. The brilliance of the campaign was that it convinced supporters that there was an opportunity and even an expectation for them to put something on the shelf under the Obama brand. Then they could see his failure as their own failure because they were in effect co-producers.
Of course, the downside for the campaign or any other organization that employs the super-user model (facebook comes quickly to mind) is that, once engaged, the organization must sacrifice unilateral action in favor of community-directed (or at least, directed-community) action.
That being said, perhaps user is still not the right word either. Maybe the Times should think about words like "co-producers," "citizens," "journalists," "developers," "colleagues," "citizen reporters," "editors," "members," "participants," or "comrades" to describe their readers. Many of these suggestions, of course, would never fly at the top-down power command structured New York Times.
Companies with strict hierarchical structure can't engage in this new art because they are systematically prohibited from ceding any power to communal control. The Times's one-to-many structure where managing editors beget senior editors beget editors beget reporters doesn't even have a socket for the community to jack in. Reporters are the most public face of the company, but the community can't come in there because reporters have no power to share. There is almost no public face for the editors, so no easy access comes there either.
This has long been a chronic problem for the news media. The traditional acknowledgement of this problem has come in the form of a public editor who is supposed to review input from the readership, find an answer, and publicly report the findings. While the public editor role is important, it has not been largely successful and it doesn't get you to Spartacuses it just engenders stone throwers.
The Times is THE elite news organization in the country. Unless they are willing to expose the Grey Lady to the muddled, chaotic advances of every citizen suitor, changing the semantics is not going to change their fate. The Daily Kos lets any member write their own diaries and several times a day, the editors talk about and promote the works of individual diarists in the main content section of the page. At times it's slutty, ranty journalism to say the least, but it also produces information, creates conversation and community, not to mention a rabid fan base willing to open their pocketbooks to support the Kos and many of the causes it supports.
Nobody seems to be talking about the DailyKos dying.
I think the Times is trying to adopt "user" to 1) change their own internal expectations of the part their customers/readers/consumers have to play in the product, and 2) change the self-perception of the reader such that they see their own role as active and participatory.
Users can make things. Consumers take things off the shelves and don't expect to put anything on them. If the product is gone one day, the consumer moves to the next brand on the shelves. But, if they start putting their own product on the shelves under a particular brand, they get more involved and have more at stake if that brand fails.
I might describe it as the "I am Spartacus" effect (have you seen that movie?). It was a very successful part of the Obama campaign. The brilliance of the campaign was that it convinced supporters that there was an opportunity and even an expectation for them to put something on the shelf under the Obama brand. Then they could see his failure as their own failure because they were in effect co-producers.
Of course, the downside for the campaign or any other organization that employs the super-user model (facebook comes quickly to mind) is that, once engaged, the organization must sacrifice unilateral action in favor of community-directed (or at least, directed-community) action.
That being said, perhaps user is still not the right word either. Maybe the Times should think about words like "co-producers," "citizens," "journalists," "developers," "colleagues," "citizen reporters," "editors," "members," "participants," or "comrades" to describe their readers. Many of these suggestions, of course, would never fly at the top-down power command structured New York Times.
Companies with strict hierarchical structure can't engage in this new art because they are systematically prohibited from ceding any power to communal control. The Times's one-to-many structure where managing editors beget senior editors beget editors beget reporters doesn't even have a socket for the community to jack in. Reporters are the most public face of the company, but the community can't come in there because reporters have no power to share. There is almost no public face for the editors, so no easy access comes there either.
This has long been a chronic problem for the news media. The traditional acknowledgement of this problem has come in the form of a public editor who is supposed to review input from the readership, find an answer, and publicly report the findings. While the public editor role is important, it has not been largely successful and it doesn't get you to Spartacuses it just engenders stone throwers.
The Times is THE elite news organization in the country. Unless they are willing to expose the Grey Lady to the muddled, chaotic advances of every citizen suitor, changing the semantics is not going to change their fate. The Daily Kos lets any member write their own diaries and several times a day, the editors talk about and promote the works of individual diarists in the main content section of the page. At times it's slutty, ranty journalism to say the least, but it also produces information, creates conversation and community, not to mention a rabid fan base willing to open their pocketbooks to support the Kos and many of the causes it supports.
Nobody seems to be talking about the DailyKos dying.
From: "spaceman@fiolink.com" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
To: Rich Cleland <rcleland@wisc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:31:20 PM
Subject: RE: readers
They should just skip straight to "consumers". That's the final stage of abstraction.
Consumer = the person who uses your product / service
Customer = the person who purchases the product / service
Influencer = the people who influence the decision of purchase, either positively or negatively
-----Original Message-----
From: "Rich Cleland" <rcatuw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:46pm
To: "Mike LaVigne" <spaceman@fiolink.com>
Subject: readers
Thought you might find this interesting. NYT have redetermined their "readers" as "users."
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=137060
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=137060
No comments:
Post a Comment