No. I don't believe so. We are up to our ears in online communities, including online business communities.
Try to do that with, of all things, journalism, even business journalism, as distinct from news junk,you end up with that rather unpleasant characterization, which is garbage in, garbage out.
One can not produce good journalism by trying to use Reed's Law (which exactly what is going on here with the Fast Company business model): specifically, the value of each person's third party contribution, in a collaborative community, scales exponentially because multiple collaborators collectively create something that neither the originator(s) nor the collaborator(s) can produce by themselves.
Check out Wikipedia.org under "Reeds Law" for an elboration on what Fast Company is trying to do.
To "blend" journalism (and "blend" is an appropriate word) you need first class news telling and then and only then first class and thoughtful collaborators.
In other words, to try and blend quality content with quality collaborative content, in an environment such as Fast Company, where anyone and everyone can join the party simply is not plausible - not if the "blend" you are after. upon percolation downward, aims to say something worth saying.
If one applies Reed's Law as applied to its utility as something that scales to mass quickly, the adoption curve clearly shows that if "journalism" - as distinct from News Junk,or gossip, or insipid nonsense, is the output that Fast Company apparently hopes for, it won't happen. Not with this model.
of course: "ProAm" journalism - stories guided by professionals and furthered by the audience - opens possibilities not possible by "citizens" or "journos" alone.
Better question: "Can a business publication survive without blending journalism and onilne community to create something better than either by itself?"
If we say no, are we hypocrites? If we say yes, are we sycophants? I think it's obvious that it _can_ be done. Question all of us who have signed up are eager to see answered is: will FastCompany be able to?
Adding a blog feature to the FastCompany.com website is a great idea, but changing the whole site into a Blog format is a big mistake. Your value has been lost in the me-too mentality - that is not innovation! Your old index page promoted a wide variety of content that would direct more traffic deeper into your site, better leverage for your advertisers.
This new model is interesting. It will work if you can manage to build community assets, meaning two things: a common language evolves out of the user interaction; and a common knowledge base begins to build itself out through collaboration.
Of course, none of these ideas are new. The question, really, is how is this community better, or even different, than others? What is the novel value proposal to new users (like myself) to try this out? I don't really know yet.
If conversation and learning is the object then this can serve as an expanded version of letters to the editor with lag time cut considerably.
You might create topic clouds for the magazine and blog, each with two sliders as filters. One, for the number of responses posted and one for time range of original post.
I believe ICT4D is not gaining the true potential it has due to inertia of change in one's mindset. I, for example, had written to many organizations suggesting that we can work on the internet space and really produce potentially explosive business consulting results/outcomes, but most companies still like the touch and feel type of comfort while handing or handling an assignment. I believe this mindset has to change because of good business logic necessitates the reduction of costs. Those organizations or companies that work with global supply chains and knowledge chains can really reap the benefit of working with global partners.
Definately. I think it's imperative that it's being done. Journalism and media needs to redefine their role in an age where their only reason for being and profitability - access to connect people with information - is being taken away by the internet.
Yes it can. But from experience all the key actors driving the process have to embrace the fact that this will cause change. It is really hard for editors to loose some control of their content, the users have to be guided (beaten/cajoled/bribed) into generating relevant content and your digital strategy and capability has to be very comprehensive to counter the inevitable ups and downs. Also be prepared to fail on the initial iteration and be ready to accept the that the model will need to be tweaked. Also your current readers are not necessarily your new contributors, you might have to seek these out in complimentary areas. Will it be better in the end? Well it might make you more money or simply mean the survival of a magazine that might go under without the lower costs of the net and cheaper reader generated content.
I believe so. You guys are turning the site into a financial social community that enhances not only the blogging features but that takes user-generated from comments to social linking the financial spectrum. By achieving this, journalism finds itself a new voice and the online community finds itself new journalism.
The real question is can a business publication afford to do anything else but blend their editorial POV, journalism and the voices of their readers and the business community?
I think it needs to. This became clear recently during the lukewarm adweek.com redesign. no community. no collaborative tools. Pubs need to start taking pages out of the book two way communication. This FastCompany test is an interesting thing. Ohmynews.com NowOpen.com and others are way ahead. It's time. The old model cannot hold...
I think it can be done, but no one has yet to find the right formula. Is the right formula throwing out all the rules and making up your own? Or perhaps when paper becomes interactive does revolution start?
Excellent. I might suggest that there be a better way to change your password if you forget. The suggestion dumps you onto to a page that doesn't permit the changing.
this is for those of us who are forgetful or have way too many passwords to remember
This is certainly very doable, but will require tools and methods to allow the community to build and contribute from wherever they are already spending their time. For example, I produce a blog of my own and some of it would be great for a Fast Company blog, but I only want to write it once and I want to do it on my platform of choice.
Oh yes! To me having place to go where others are trying to gain financial freedom, and discuss the different approaches, and bringing business together to promote one another and help one another, is extremely a good idea. Eveybody will benefit when companies like fast company join in and help promote new technologies and become a part of that community. Its like creating one big company through the community. We are all at board meetings! LOL
bunny
I think the online community is a timely feedback and creative mechanism that drive the future direction of the publication. The online community is made up of individuals whose individual goals and objectives can lead to collective consciousness of what issues need to be examined.
Of course :) Traditional Journalism is on the death bed. Everyone knows it. The future will be a blend of "Trusted Sources" that are much less "Official" and public sources that maintain credibility.
35 Total
February 9, 2008 at 4:30pm by Goto Ao
No. I don't believe so. We are up to our ears in online communities, including online business communities.
Try to do that with, of all things, journalism, even business journalism, as distinct from news junk,you end up with that rather unpleasant characterization, which is garbage in, garbage out.
One can not produce good journalism by trying to use Reed's Law (which exactly what is going on here with the Fast Company business model): specifically, the value of each person's third party contribution, in a collaborative community, scales exponentially because multiple collaborators collectively create something that neither the originator(s) nor the collaborator(s) can produce by themselves.
Check out Wikipedia.org under "Reeds Law" for an elboration on what Fast Company is trying to do.
To "blend" journalism (and "blend" is an appropriate word) you need first class news telling and then and only then first class and thoughtful collaborators.
In other words, to try and blend quality content with quality collaborative content, in an environment such as Fast Company, where anyone and everyone can join the party simply is not plausible - not if the "blend" you are after. upon percolation downward, aims to say something worth saying.
If one applies Reed's Law as applied to its utility as something that scales to mass quickly, the adoption curve clearly shows that if "journalism" - as distinct from News Junk,or gossip, or insipid nonsense, is the output that Fast Company apparently hopes for, it won't happen. Not with this model.
Derick Harris
February 9, 2008 at 4:34pm by Steve McNally
of course: "ProAm" journalism - stories guided by professionals and furthered by the audience - opens possibilities not possible by "citizens" or "journos" alone.
February 9, 2008 at 5:39pm by Christina Tierney
Yes...I believe that not only can they...they have to.
February 9, 2008 at 5:59pm by Brian Massey
Better question: "Can a business publication survive without blending journalism and onilne community to create something better than either by itself?"
February 9, 2008 at 6:11pm by Michael Nelson
If we say no, are we hypocrites? If we say yes, are we sycophants? I think it's obvious that it _can_ be done. Question all of us who have signed up are eager to see answered is: will FastCompany be able to?
February 9, 2008 at 7:49pm by Jonathan Belisle
It depends of the editorial motives behind the architecture of the Content Platform used to diffuse information.
February 9, 2008 at 8:28pm by Roberto Gallardo
Yes. Derick's comment proves the model by contributing in an intelligent, articulate and informed way. Thanks for sharing your insights.
February 9, 2008 at 10:26pm by Paul Acosta
Definitely as long as the lines don't become too blurred as to overwhelm their users.
February 9, 2008 at 10:38pm by Kenny O
Adding a blog feature to the FastCompany.com website is a great idea, but changing the whole site into a Blog format is a big mistake. Your value has been lost in the me-too mentality - that is not innovation! Your old index page promoted a wide variety of content that would direct more traffic deeper into your site, better leverage for your advertisers.
My two cents!
Kenny O
BetterLeverage
February 9, 2008 at 10:42pm by Eduardo Marisca
This new model is interesting. It will work if you can manage to build community assets, meaning two things: a common language evolves out of the user interaction; and a common knowledge base begins to build itself out through collaboration.
Of course, none of these ideas are new. The question, really, is how is this community better, or even different, than others? What is the novel value proposal to new users (like myself) to try this out? I don't really know yet.
February 10, 2008 at 12:08am by Evan Hackel
I think it hard for any business to be more then one thing.
February 10, 2008 at 3:37am by Steve Rossiter
If conversation and learning is the object then this can serve as an expanded version of letters to the editor with lag time cut considerably.
You might create topic clouds for the magazine and blog, each with two sliders as filters. One, for the number of responses posted and one for time range of original post.
February 10, 2008 at 4:21am by Pete Marriott
Yes, as long the journalism stays objective. When we personalize everything we lose rational.
February 10, 2008 at 7:08am by Ziaur Rahman
I believe ICT4D is not gaining the true potential it has due to inertia of change in one's mindset. I, for example, had written to many organizations suggesting that we can work on the internet space and really produce potentially explosive business consulting results/outcomes, but most companies still like the touch and feel type of comfort while handing or handling an assignment. I believe this mindset has to change because of good business logic necessitates the reduction of costs. Those organizations or companies that work with global supply chains and knowledge chains can really reap the benefit of working with global partners.
Ziaur Rahman
luckytoaccess@gmail.com
IITM
Dhaka
February 10, 2008 at 7:11am by Mads Kristensen
Definately. I think it's imperative that it's being done. Journalism and media needs to redefine their role in an age where their only reason for being and profitability - access to connect people with information - is being taken away by the internet.
February 10, 2008 at 9:44am by Kevin Heald
I believe it can. The challenge is ensuring that it does not become an avenue for people selling their products or services.
February 10, 2008 at 11:03am by Matthew King
Yes it can. But from experience all the key actors driving the process have to embrace the fact that this will cause change. It is really hard for editors to loose some control of their content, the users have to be guided (beaten/cajoled/bribed) into generating relevant content and your digital strategy and capability has to be very comprehensive to counter the inevitable ups and downs. Also be prepared to fail on the initial iteration and be ready to accept the that the model will need to be tweaked. Also your current readers are not necessarily your new contributors, you might have to seek these out in complimentary areas. Will it be better in the end? Well it might make you more money or simply mean the survival of a magazine that might go under without the lower costs of the net and cheaper reader generated content.
February 10, 2008 at 11:03am by Andre Barnes
I believe so. You guys are turning the site into a financial social community that enhances not only the blogging features but that takes user-generated from comments to social linking the financial spectrum. By achieving this, journalism finds itself a new voice and the online community finds itself new journalism.
February 10, 2008 at 11:05am by John Bell
The real question is can a business publication afford to do anything else but blend their editorial POV, journalism and the voices of their readers and the business community?
February 10, 2008 at 11:38am by Tom Ajello
I think it needs to. This became clear recently during the lukewarm adweek.com redesign. no community. no collaborative tools. Pubs need to start taking pages out of the book two way communication. This FastCompany test is an interesting thing. Ohmynews.com NowOpen.com and others are way ahead. It's time. The old model cannot hold...
February 10, 2008 at 11:53am by faz besharatian
Yes. As long as it its a nice blend and focuses on the original goals of the publication.
February 10, 2008 at 12:20pm by Peter Timpone
I think it can be done, but no one has yet to find the right formula. Is the right formula throwing out all the rules and making up your own? Or perhaps when paper becomes interactive does revolution start?
February 10, 2008 at 12:34pm by Richard Rea
Excellent. I might suggest that there be a better way to change your password if you forget. The suggestion dumps you onto to a page that doesn't permit the changing.
this is for those of us who are forgetful or have way too many passwords to remember
February 10, 2008 at 1:04pm by Alex Nesbitt
This is certainly very doable, but will require tools and methods to allow the community to build and contribute from wherever they are already spending their time. For example, I produce a blog of my own and some of it would be great for a Fast Company blog, but I only want to write it once and I want to do it on my platform of choice.
February 10, 2008 at 1:50pm by Subhashish Acharya
Lynne ,
very good question.
Yes That would be the new strategy for all Blogs/Publications. Its definitely possible.
But , everything is highly commercialized. One needs to understand how money would flow in if such a thing may be brought into being.
February 10, 2008 at 2:24pm by bunny ramey
Oh yes! To me having place to go where others are trying to gain financial freedom, and discuss the different approaches, and bringing business together to promote one another and help one another, is extremely a good idea. Eveybody will benefit when companies like fast company join in and help promote new technologies and become a part of that community. Its like creating one big company through the community. We are all at board meetings! LOL
bunny
February 10, 2008 at 3:24pm by John Gray
I think the online community is a timely feedback and creative mechanism that drive the future direction of the publication. The online community is made up of individuals whose individual goals and objectives can lead to collective consciousness of what issues need to be examined.
February 10, 2008 at 4:32pm by Doug Richardson
Yes, it is good for their survial and I would hope "the blend" creates a meaningful value-add to those interested in the subject mater
February 10, 2008 at 4:36pm by Enric Senabre
It seems so, since we're participating right now into it, somehow :)
Enric
February 10, 2008 at 9:41pm by Orly Ballesteros
It is a great idea. A fusion of two related and complementary things make a very powerful tool.
February 10, 2008 at 10:28pm by Todd S.
Of course :) Traditional Journalism is on the death bed. Everyone knows it. The future will be a blend of "Trusted Sources" that are much less "Official" and public sources that maintain credibility.
Todd
TLX Interactivew
www.tlxinteractive.com
February 10, 2008 at 10:41pm by Matthew Hickey
Yes, provided the component parts are of high quality within themselves.
February 11, 2008 at 12:21am by Carlyle Bradford
Yes. It is possible, and I believe Fast Company is positioned well enough in the market to take advantage of this opportunity.
February 11, 2008 at 1:45am by Warner Carter
it seems obvious
February 11, 2008 at 1:48am by Layla Shakeeb
yes