Category Archive

Chalk up yet another example of the wide reach and lasting impact of the Internet on traditional marketing. This report on the annual advertising purchasing by the major American TV networks has two main headlines: the ratings continue to plummet, and the participants continue to look for alternatives to the typical TV advertising blitz. More marketers are purchasing advertising “bundles” that go beyond the 30-second ad to include other media and placements. The new buzzword is apparently integration - buy a few ads, stream the show on select websites, place the product in the program or script, etc. Just to make things more exciting, the companies and networks are also trying to figure out how to measure the popularity of their programs - and the related advertising - in the new world of streaming (both free and pirated), iPhones and Tivo. Welcome to the brave new world.

For me, one of the most fascinating elements of the Web 2.0 revolution is the proliferation of free or almost free applications and services available on the internet. I know my last post was on this topic, but bear with me….I haven’t really heard a clear and convincing explanation of the phenomenon until I read this article in the Globe & Mail (a plug for Canada’s best newspaper) featuring an interview with Wired editor Chris Anderson.

Anderson argues that the new economics of the Web - where it is very cheap (and becoming cheaper every day) for anybody to establish sites and reach millions and bandwidth, storage and processing power are increasingly affordable - has fostered a new age of free economics. Anderson suggests that the obsession with finding a way to “monetize” online services and applications may be misguided, and is not a pre-ordained outcome for all companies on the Internet. He posits that the new model is a “freemium” where less than 1% of heavy users can subsidize free use for the other 99%.

I’m not an economist, but I found this discussion really compelling. And from what I’ve experienced, this trend is a definite reality and it’s had a very positive impact on the reach and impact of the Web. The implications for personal users are mind-boggling, but this is also relevant to professional communicators. The move towards freeware provides huge opportunities for those of us trying to build blogs or create and distribute digital content, but as I’ve argued before the concept is anathema to most IT departments, which are inherently risk-averse and susprisingly unfamiliar (from my experience) with social media. It will be interesting to watch when this trend towards free services enters the realm of corporate IT…if ever.

I’ve been on the road most of the past week in  the US and UK and have watched with fascination as the Beijing Olympic Torch relay unfolds. Though the coverage across the various global media channels varied - I got info from everything from the BBC to USA Today to Le Monde - the story was fairly consistent. China’s attempt to burnish it’s reputation as a country and global leader through the Olympics is in shambles - at least so far. By any measure - save perhaps the assessment by the Chinese government officials - the relay has turned into a PR fiasco of historic proportions. After the carefully planned relay devolved into brawling and demonstrations - all captured by the global media TV cameras - Chinese officials tried to control the message by staging surreal non-events - such as the relay in India which banned any spectators and involved the runners going around an enclosed stadium dozens of times. They also added about 15,000 police for good measure. Subsequent stops were similar - heavy-handed security, private events and stitled celebrations with forced smiles all around. Beyond the politics of this development, what are the lessons here for communication professionals? Here are a few suggestions:

• In the digital era where global media -and citizen journalists - provide 24-day massive coverage of most events instantly, the stage-managed style of PR favored by countries like China is becoming more disingenuous and less effective. The only place where China can successfully control their message is in China, due to draconian censorship and state controlled media. China is learning that their propaganda productions don’t work so well in the real world. Welcome to the Web 2.0 world!
• There’s probably a lesson here how powerful the Internet has become as a news source and force for social movement and debate. Based on what I saw the Web served as an important platform in the planning, promotion, discussion and coverage of the torch demonstrations. Conversely, China seems able to control much of the internal national discussion through their tight censorship of the Web - though they are happy to loosen the reins when their citizens jump with nationalist frenzy with cries to boycott Carrefour stores.
• If anybody needed another reminder, companies that align their marketing with famous stars or countries with dubious track records do so at their own peril. Just yesterday Coca-Cola announced it was ”adjusting” its marketing plans for the remainder of the torch relay. Whether any of the countries can benefit from the Olympic Games themselves probably depends on whether China can turn the PR tides and stem the loud global criticism and avoid major boycotts. Either way, I suspect Lenovo will come out as the biggest loser. As a Chinese company, this is their global coming out party. Bad timing.
• Issues blend and overlap into a messy public relations morass where the public dictates the communication agenda, not corporations or governments. China clearly thought it could segment (or ignore) geo-political issues like Darfur, Tibet, tainted medicine and food and the environment and keep these distasteful issues from the Olympic Games. No such luck. Many saw the Games as precisely the right time to lump all these together into a loud proclamation for change by China. It will be interesting  to see whether China will try to defuse any of these issues (probably behind the scenes) or just continue to plow forward.
• Finally, I note that China’s main crisis-management strategy seems to be to paint demonstrators - and the Dalai Lama - as dangerous malcontents with a nefarious agenda. (Strange how Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did the same thing this week, accusing critics of trying to re-colonialize his country.) In other words, when in trouble go on the attack. The track record of this tactic seems to be very bad, and I doubt it will work this time.

This is PR on a broad world stage. Let’s watch and see what happens. It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

There is plenty of commentary on Comcast’s recent decision to stop slowing data transfer among users - notably the large files used by folks who use file-sharing applications like BitTorrent. Check out this post for a good summary of the various sides in the polemic. I realize that there was plenty of heat from the FCC on this one, but I see this as yet another example of the immense power of online users - the network or community, in social media speak - and the perils of trying to spar with online consumers. I suspect Comcast’s late conversion to civility and good citizenship has as much to do with their increasingly horrid reputation online (check out the vitriol on this popular site) as their desire to play nice with Kevin Martin at the FCC. Chalk up another win for the consumer.  

The folks at Dell continue to push the envelope in the area of social media and recently came out with their perspective - or manifesto of guiding principles - on supporting an increasingly mobile workforce. Check out the post here. [Full disclosure: Until several months ago, I worked at Dell in the social media team and was involved in defining and implementing the company's social media strategy.] Dell’s ideas are insightful and provide a good roadmap for any organization trying to address the ubiquity of mobile devices, digital content and peripatetic workers. Perhaps their smartest move is to look at the issue from the perspective of the end-user, rather than the IT geeks or corporate leaders.

What really hit home after reading this post is how far some companies are lagging in this race for relevance and connectivity with workers. While some companies are juggling which multimedia device or platform to use (iPhone or 3G phone?) others are simply trying to get their workforce connected to the internet…or even intranet…through clunky old computer terminals. The idea of cell phones for their workforce is still years away. There are many reasons for this digital divide - culture, cost, geography - but the biggest may simply be awareness. Keeping up with the Web 2.0 revolution is a challenge - even for IT departments - and many organizations are hard-pressed to keep updated on trends and developments, let alone try to explain them to their leaders. The saving grace of the rapid progress is that it may be possible to skip some steps in the race to get workers connected - the solution today (PDAs) may be replaced by a better one tomorrow (the next version of iPhone.) The biggest mistake, however, would be to just give up.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been working on projects that would entail recreating physical displays or locations - such as a corporate museum or historic location - in virtual form…either through an interactive, digital application or in a virtual environment like Second Life. Trying to explain the huge creative opportunities of these virtual locations - not to mention the portability and cost savings - can sometimes be a challenge to folks who have never experienced Second Life or elaborate digital or Web games. These well-meaning sceptics usually assume the virtual versions will somehow be “flat” and miss a critical human element. Take a look at a great example of a real location transformed and made accessible - and in some ways better - online. This article shows how folks have made the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. a compelling, social virtual experience. Though the virtual version can’t fully duplicate the real experience - including the tactile element that makes the wall so memorable and powerful - some interesting features (such as being able to view personal scrapbooks on all the names) provide information that isn’t available at the memorial. A good example of creativity and good taste.

This postby Steve Rubel on the proliferation of SEO consultants with dubious tactics (and intentions) is just the latest cry of alarm about this ugly trend. It should be no surprise, of course, that some will promote/sell ways to jack the system to make organizations (or individuals) look better in search results - either by burying negative on-line mentions, generating a lot of fluff and/or driving the popularity of positive mentions. There is certainly merit in proactively trying to get positive corporate or personal content near the top of the ladder - in fact more companies should be doing this as per of their ongoing PR efforts - but problems occur when this is the only purpose of the SEO efforts. And there is a difference between adjusting copy in a press release to get the right words (or tags) featured in a search and generating empty content or fake traffic just to alter the search returns. As Rubel suggests, SEO rankings should be a by-product of engaging in on-line conversation, not an end in itself.  Hopefully PR and marketing professionals just becoming familiar with social media will steer clear of the snake oil salesmen and focus on doing the right thing - driving credible and transparent conversations.  

Sorry for the paucity of posts the past couple of weeks, but I’ve been in a blur of travel and work assignments – one of which has taken me to a venerable tradition in many companies: the annual meeting of the sales force. I’ve had several discussions over the past week with peers and friends about the value – and sustainability – of these meetings, particularly in companies that are growing beyond the comfortable confines of 10,000 or so employees or expanding across global locations. The costs and logistics for these meetings increase exponentially as a company grows in size and reach. In my last company (Dell) the all-staff meeting had long since been replaced by live, global webcasts and smaller functional or regional meetings supplemented by various technologies (like video-conferencing.) But many companies, either hesitant to tinker with a tradition (particularly involving the sacred sales force) or convinced of the value of face-to-face interaction, continue to go through the regular ritual…complete with award dinners, social events, marketing kits and a bonanza of drink and food.

After coming into the week as a firm proponent of virtual meetings  - leveraging technology to conduct online sessions or even conducting an entire meeting in Second Life – I now have a more tempered perspective. I think there is still huge value in face-to-face interaction – even if the interaction is social as opposed to a purely business function. But I also see the inevitability of companies having to adapt when they become a certain size. Perhaps there is a compromise here – for example conducting regional meetings but linking all the participants by online events or webcasting…kind of a variation of the famous IBM “jams.”  I also think many companies could replicate the face-to-face social aspects of a team meeting with online social networking tools - ranging from Twitter alerts to an event blog. Ignoring the huge opportunities inherent in the Web – and virtual environments like Second Life – is a big mistake.

Picked up some interesting chatter online about an ex-Apple insider criticizing the company’s philosophy - and restrictive  policies - regarding social media. Check out one of the strings here. Assuming this is credible (I have no reason to doubt the story) this post is somewhat surprising, given Apple’s leadership role in product design and marketing. But if you think about it this angle makes sense, since from everything I’ve read or heard Mr. Jobs runs a fairly tight, autocratic ship and favors a command-and-control (and secretive) PR style that is out of sync with the company’s cutting-edge image. It was particularly interesting to note that Apple apparently discourages its execs (or subject matter experts) from blogging under their Apple identity…if they blog at all, and does not support the use of online collaboration tools. This approach is totally out of sync with the emphasis on transparency, candor and collaboration that underlines the Web 2.0 environment. Add another chink in the shining Apple armour…. 

Check out this post by uber blogger Robert Scoble in Fast Company. Scoble raves about new applications that allow teams to collaborate more easily and seamlessly in a virtual “cloud”. News like this is sure to make those trying to function in command-and-control companies cry in despair. While some workers are building programs online and lifting ideas and visuals from shared sites, others can’t even get access to the internet. Unfortunately, the gap seems to be getting wider.

I just read this interesting post in TechCrunch, which suggests that an expected downturn in corporate IT spending in the U.S. is good news for the Web 2.0 trend, since the Web is full of free or low-cost alternatives to the expensive hardware and software sold by the industry leaders. Beyond the interesting good news/bad news duality of this story, it brings to light the schitzophrenic reaction of IT departments to Web 2.0 technology. In fairness, I totally understand why they are often defensive and even incredulous in the face of this trend - one could argue it threatens their very existence. If I can download a free corporate blog platform from the web, get tips and help through blogs and chat rooms, and even host the program externally using Google or Amazon servers, why do I need my IT department? Software, servers, applications, information and trouble-shooting tips…all these can be found on the Web at little or no cost. Furthermore, many IT departments have a troubling habit of promoting rules and products that are good for them, but not necessarily their internal clients or external customers. (Don’t even get me started on antiquated firewall or bandwidth rules that prevent employees from properly doing their jobs.) Smart CIOs  and IT teams will address these criticisms and help their companies navigate the shoals of the Web 2.o environment. Their expertise, support and counsel are critical to the long-term success of any corporate social media strategy. Otherwise, many marketing and PR professionals will simply work around the hurdles, and that’s usually not the best option.

Check out this incisive post by word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz, who provides yet another account of the disappointing tendency of corporate PR departments to ban access to social media (or to the internet!) Andy does a great job exposing the weak, self-defeating logic of this archaic position. For those of you trying to do your PR jobs in “closed” environments and struggling to justify why you need access to the net, look no further than the arguments in this post. This unfortunate tendency to deny access to social networks (or YouTube, Second Life or any other online site) is almost as dumb as the old chestnut of removing tough questions from an FAQ briefing document…as if that will deter folks from asking the offending question. Some lessons are never learned.

Picked up a post on Mashable that nicely captures choices for the key web trends for the past year. The only big one I would add - though it might seem like stating the obvious - is the increasingly dominant role of Google as an economic, cultural and technological force on the Web. For better or worse, what they decide to do (or buy) has major ripple effects on the vast internet ecosystem. Though some fear this power, I’ve yet to see any negative impact of Google’s domination in my daily interactions on the Web - quite the opposite, in fact - so I’m withholding  my judgement.

Looking beyond the core Web trends into related developments in PR, I guess the most prominent trend is simply that companies are slowly, sometimes reluctantly, adopting some of the tools and ethos of social media in their communication activities: corporate blogs, internal wikis, RSS-enabled intranet portals, islands on Second Life, crowd-sourcing sites, social press releases, Twitter networks…and so on. There’s also been a steady increase of activities that could be considered marketing - or sorry…relationship building as the CMOs would define it. 

I see most if not all of these trends are positive developments. The twin disciplines of PR and marketing (as well as advertising to a lesser extent) have already greatly benefited, I would suggest, from being blown inside-out with the liberating gusts of Web 2.0 ideas and tools. PR, in particular, was (is?) in need of a major overhaul; name another profession with such a dubious reputation, stifling inertia, propensity to flirt with the dark side of ethics and insular thinking. Let the winds of freedom blow…. 

A recent post by David Armano on the increasing mobility of digital content convincingly captures the trend towards digital freedom, allowing us to access (or send) content anywhere, anytime and through an expanding range of tools. Still, even as Web access becomes more ubiquitous and portable through the expansion of access points (free wi-fi), portable devices (3-G phones) and evolving cultural norms (virtual workers) there is a stubborn gap in digital mobility - particularly across corporations. While one company arms its workers with the latest Blackberry or multi-purpose cameras and essentially obviates the need for permanent offices, others struggle to provide wireless access to their workers in their own facilities…and wouldn’t dream of providing mobile devices to anybody beyond their top executives. And that’s just in the larger cities of North America.

Though a part of this lag is likely due to the economics of obtaining and implementing new technology, I suspect the larger reason is cultural. Companies sticking closer to the chained-to-the-desk, firewall mentality seem more concerned about what employees will do with their new-found freedom than about costs. We’ve all heard the typical concerns:

- “What if employees start leaking information… or surfing bad sites?”

- “Won’t some employees  say bad things about the company?”

- “What if they spend all their time going to Facebook or YouTube?”

 These concerns reflect a paranoia which is misplaced, and also a touch of executive arrogance. Trying to stall technology to keep workers in line totally misses the point of the huge advantages inherent in the new mobile technology, and of the futility of trying to bury or avoid digital conversations. What these companies need is not a new CIO, but a cultural overhaul.

I’ve been reading a fair deal lately about the technological savvy - or lack thereof - of the candidates vying for the Republican and Democractic slots in the upcoming president elections. On the one hand, there are kudos being thrown around for the smart websites and blogs of many of the candidates - with some like Ron Paul and Barrack Obama being singled out for astute use of these tools to generate buzz and raise money. But I’ve also read/heard some criticisms about the stunning lack of personal awareness (let alone understanding) of emerging technology by some of these same candidates. (There was an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, but can’t link as it’s subscription-only access.) Apparently some of these folks - notably John McCain and Mitt Romney - are unfamiliar with the basic mechanics and tools of the Web 2.0 environment - including MySpace. Some of this is blamed on the generation gap - after all most of these folks are well past their teen years - but whatever the reason this is cause for concern: it’s not a good scenario when the leadership of the country is woefully out of sync with developments related to the internet and evolving communication patterns. 

These politicians can likely bluff their way by and hire specialists and consultants to brief them and point them in the right direction. What worries me even more is the stubborn gap in the communications field, where I still run into senior practitioners who zealously avoid computers or are years behind in terms of tracking developments on the Web. These are the people who are paid to counsel organizations on how to communicate and market effectively, so their knowledge gaps raise serious quality and credibility problems. Age can forgive some of this lag, but not all of it. Insularity, institutional inertia and the rapid pace of change are other potential reasons. Either way, there is no excuse: no serious communications expert can be out of touch with major Web trends and innovations. This is where that old HR chestnut lifelong learning becomes a reality.   

The latest developments at Facebook - recently captured in this New York Times article - are just the latest and most prominent example of the awkward evolution of the internet. Apparently, Facebook has given in - at least to some extent - to the vociferous critics of its new advertising program, which sends details on personal web surfing to your Facebook “friends.” There will now be an individual opt-out function available to users before any emails are sent to any friends  - though it will have to be repeated every time. But beyond the details of this marketing dust-up, it’s interesting  to note the salience of several recurring themes in the protean Web 2.0 environment:

• It’s easy enough to create a popular website, network or application…but another thing altogether to figure out a way to make money on a sustained basis. Facebook’s introduction of the Beacon advertising tool is an attempt to “monetize” its huge user group. The jury is still out.
• Though evidence suggests peer-to-peer references are paramount in individual purchase decisions, they need to be transparent and credible to have any traction. Facebook’s twisted version of a friendly referral - your friends are alerted if you frequent a website… likely assuming you are tipping them off to a great bargain, yet all it means is that you visited said website - does not pass the sniff test for most users.  
• The will of the community - the millions of users on websites or networks - continues to be a driving force in shaping the rules and format of web properties. It’s clear companies cannot afford to ignore user input or suggestions, but Facebook has shown you can survive with some compromise and without abdicating to user demands. That said, they are playing a dangerous game and could be losing valuable brand equity and buzz with their hard-ball tactics.

 This will be an interesting issue to watch in the months ahead. Web companies and networks would be well advised to play close attention…there may be important clues to where web strategy and etiquette goes from here.   

 UPDATE: As many expected, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given in to the will of the digital masses and will allow members to permanently shut off Beacon, his controversial new advertising feature. Check out the mea culpa by Zuckerberg on the Facebook blog. See one of several articles on the subject here. Does anybody need further proof of the increasing power of the online customer?

This BusinessWeek article is one of many that documents the backlash against Facebook in the wake of its decision to introduce so-called social advertising on the network - personalized ads based not only on individual surfing habits and preferences but also, in theory, on the habits and recommendations of your Facebook “friends.” Author Rob Hof sees the uproar (which he admits could be a vocal minority) as an indictment of the apparent arrogance of the Facebook team,  but I see this incident as just another example of the delicate and dangerous tapdance of companies trying to market - and make money - on the Internet. The informal rules of engagement are sometimes obvious, but too often they are murky and implicit. And as with Facebook, the etiquette of a particular network can evolve as the platform grows. Despite the confusion it remains clear most online users are very protective when it comes to marketing - it’s ok to sell or pitch to them, but you’d better pick the right platform and occasion or there will be hell to pay…and ideally the ad should be personalized… and loaded with incentives. Of course, these same people occasionally cry foul when they realize their personal surfing habits are being mined and sold for marketing purposes. In short, the line in the sand is hard to find. I personally think Facebook is on the right track here - they want to find a way to make money in a way that’s relevant and tactful without alienating their users. We’ll see how it plays out.  

A recent BusinessWeek article does a good job of capturing the debate and developments around the issue of building social networks for employees. The article highlights two of the central questions related to this topic:

• One is whether to build an employee network - or even to allow employees to access existing corporate networks outside the firewall (e.g. virtually every major company has a Facebook network…though many are not sponsored or supervised)
• Assuming you want to proceed, a central question becomes whether to leverage the existing external networks, to create a new network on the internet or to build a network within the firewall

On the first question, I would argue that denying employee access to Facebook and/or ignoring the trend towards networking is akin to sticking a finger in a massive dike…the decision is short-sighted and unrealistic.

On the latter question, there is merit to all three options, but also distinctive challenges. For those companies who fear breaches of confidentiality or have a workforce that is grumpy and likely to be highly critical, it may make more sense to initially create an in-house network. For others - particularly companies whose employees are likely to be advocates and already have a high profile on the net, it probably makes sense to create an external site.

But the important point here is to recognize that employees are already active on networks, and that there are already conversations going on about the company. So the question becomes whether there is benefit in harnessing that employee networking for the company’s benefit. Furthermore, the tools that make social networks so attractive can be leveraged to drive collaboration and alignment across an organization. With that background, it seems like keeping the digital door shut tight is an exercise in futility, and probably bad for business.  

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

I’ve spent the past two weeks or so in Tanzania (to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro) and was curious to see how much this part of the world - considered a developing region despite the strong tourism presence - was participating in the digital revolution. My verdict, though perhaps anecdotal, is that even in this relatively poor, developing part of East Africa the digital revolution is a daily reality. Consider these snapshots:

- I am writing this post from one of several internet cafes in Moshi, which are typically crammed with locals and ex-pats catching up on email, checking their Facebook profiles or even using Skype to call home

- It’s possible to use a cell phone (or Blackberry) on virtually the entire Kilimanjaro mountain, and even to make a cell phone call from the summit - courtesy of a Chinese cellular network

- Cell phones are ubiquitous among the population of Moshi and the Kili guides. In fact, our guide used his phone (via text messages and calls) to coordinate his team and direct supplies across the various base camps

- By far the biggest marketing presence in the town and surrounding villages is for cell phone providers - Cell Tell and Vodaphone being the most prominent

- Schools designed to train locals in computer and internet technology are fairly common, and appear to be quite popular

Despite these positives, there are still drawbacks. On the internet side the vast majority of connections are via modem, and virtually useless for any type of rich content. Wi-fi hotspots are non-existent. Most hotels do not provide any sort of internet access (we had to borrow the reception desk at our hotel to send a few emails.) And both electrical power and mobile coverage can be spotty in some areas. But overall, with limited effort one can plug into the Web and use cell phones for both personal and business needs. I see all this as encouraging sign that the digital divide is becoming a relic of the past.

Steve Rubel always has some interesting information and arguments to share. Recently, he opined in this post that the big portals - Yahoo, Google, AOL and such - would come out ahead in the long-run despite the blaring hype about social networks and cool websites. Anecdotally, based on my own use I would have to agree. Even as I enter into new networks or add new websites as favorites, I seem to put more importance on portals like Google. For me, Google helps me in many ways - as an aggregator (Google Reader), a centralized search tool, a free email system to complement my home one and a source of countless applications - such as Picasa, Google Earth and Google Docs. As the Web becomes more crowded and complicated, any system (or portal) that can help us to organize and streamline our activities will be relevant and popular.

The larger question in all this is at what point the system will become overloaded. How many new applications, networks or websites can be added to the mix before traffic (and revenue) start to contract and we have more losers than winners? Whatever happens, the winners will be determined by the online community, and that’s the way it should be.

If we needed any more evidence of the immense influence of the Internet, look no further than the latest redesign of the venerable BusinessWeek magazine. As detailed in this New York Times article, BW is using a number of design and format lessons from the Web to goose the magazine’s appeal and circulation. Elements of the redesign include more summaries, inserts (or “links” with references to outside publications), shorter articles, and distinctive sections focusing on specific topics or themes with their own tables of contents. Cynics quoted in the article suggest BW may have been better off just dumping the magazine and making improvements to their online version. And of course, the central elements of any online publication - the added dimension of conversation and links - cannot be duplicated in a paper document. Time will tell if these changes will help the magazine, since the ultimate question is whether there is any need for magazines with the increasing ubiquity of digital content - including business news. Time will tell.