The early adopters tend to overvalue what’s new. That’s fine and nothing out of the norm, it’s just what they do. But what bothers me is when they proclaim a new piece of technology created by companies they’re fans of changes not just general consumer tech, but also industry x or y without really understanding those industries.
The web is a referential medium. Bloggers and digitally-savvy journalists understand the concept of linking as a source, and instead of having to re-explain something already fleshed out, we just link as proof. It’s simple and as still as effective as ever, even in a real-time world.
Everyone collects competitive data. The web has provided a glut of qualitative and qualitative information you can quickly acquire on competitors to use to your advantage. The truth, though, is most stop at simply collecting this data or using it as a barometer for themselves. In other words: they usually just report on it. Some analyze it.
Last week an interesting situation erupted between TechCrunch and Fortune Magazine. And, it perfectly highlights the old vs. new media mindsets. I suggest you click the previous link and read Mike Arrington’s version of the story, (including emails from Fortune) but in case you’re busy here’s a summarized version of what happened:
Across the varieties of content that exist – from music and movies, to blogs and books, there is a constant. Inevitably the banal/common is popular, and the brilliant/offbeat lives in obscurity. Perhaps given life from those close to the industry or years later from wider audiences if the producers of that content are lucky.
I like Jesse Stay (and am a reader of his blog) and wasn’t initially going to blog this. But thinking about it further, and as someone who works both on social media and SEO clients/projects, I felt a need to weigh in and not leave this conversation unchecked.