It turns out that the Groundswell Social Profile quiz I blogged about earlier wasn’t an official Forrester creation. Rather, it was created by a fan – and you can read the official Forrester take on this on their blog. This raised an issue I read about earlier this week on ReadWriteWeb: Content is Becoming a Commodity. The concern is that content is “being used, shared and profited from” without the author’s permission, and it is therefore being devalued.
I suppose I feel that any message is going to be altered somewhat from its original intent, just due to the personal experiences of the listener. “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are”. Personal opinion or bias or expectation will always impact perceptions. Once upon a time we may have felt that a message could be crafted and executed and perfectly delivered, but we cannot anticipate precisely how it will be received.
Both Groundswell and The Open Brand acknowledge different levels of online engagement, and we are all very familiar with all the outlets for personal expression and creation online. I suppose I see the commentary and “remixes” of online content and ideas as an extension of this. It really is the very essence of the Open Brand. It is about a three-way relationship between the individual, the brand and the community. It is not a matter of a brand, or a blogger, pushing a message out, it is about that level of engagement, and allowing individuals to make the message relevant and personal.
I will admit, I’m likely at the far end of the spectrum in terms of my online activities being centered around creating or personalizing. If I read an interesting article or post, I feel compelled to do something with it, be that sharing it with others or storing it away for future reference. I would argue that even my commenting on something I read is having an impact on it, either directly or indirectly.
In an era where we classify individuals based on their behaviours and motivations, we are obviously recognizing differences between them. Should we not aspire to delivering messages that can appeal to members of different classifications? If so, we must acknowledge and welcome the impact the recipient has on the message, that it may be appropriate and effective.
(I mention Schroedinger’s Cat because I long felt it was simply analogy that we cannot know the fate of the cat without acting on the box. I thought that the premise was that our input was required. I’m no longer sure that’s entirely the intent, but this further drives home the idea that a message may be effective and memorable, but for entirely different reasons than were originally intended).
Related posts:
- Subscribe to the RSS feed
- Get Email updates
- Tweet This
- Stumble It
- Add to del.icio.us
- Share on Facebook
- Email to a friend
