Finding The Missing Jigsaw Piece

Paddy has always been a great person to be conversing with, for one who never fails to light up any discussion and share his opinions/ideas. We met over Sunday and while on the way home, we began a short topic regarding the low sustainability of new media in Singapore. It wasn’t comprehensive but if time permits, I am sure we are able to spot a lot more deficits in our small industry.

We constantly saying how slow Singapore-based companies are adopting new media but we never quite got around to the root of the problem. Apart from being traditional largely, the lacks are mostly found in service providers than adopters. Indirectly, it also led us to question how sustainable it is for any company working into this particular arena. Sure, we see new companies springing up all the time but how many will eventually remain standing at the end of the day?

Identity. Many companies have yet to establish a true identity for themselves. Are you an advertising agency? Are you a PR agency? Are you a marketing firm? Truth be told, many are still lost out at sea despite how much they are trying to define themselves. We are looking at Web 2.0 companies proclaiming to do PR. We are looking at banner-ad companies proclaiming to do marketing. They come in all shapes, sizes and formats. But, what truly are you?

Is providing non-interactive banner-ads good enough to be known as a marketing solution provider? Is providing a platform for bloggers to congregate sufficient to sell yourself as a PR agency? Well, little guessing why potential adopters are being confused. The service providers are confusing themselves equally.

Diversity. There is no way a company can survive solely on banner-ad or blog advertising. Diversity becomes the key to sustainability, not taking into account the providence of services that complement the core business. Yet, to diversify simply meant you need to bring on additional manpower with expertise beyond the usual hyped-up technology. For a simple fact, having the technology alone isn’t enough. You got to know how to maintain the technology. You got to know how to sell your technology. You got to know how to expand your technology. You got to know how to service your customers using your technology. The list goes on and on.

Expertise. Your best capability is your best survival. Far too many new media entries are managed solely by technologists and not unless they are trained in (or at least exposed regularly to) marketing/PR, many of them are absolutely horrendous. Doing something that you’re not trained to do is definitely shooting yourselves in your own feet. That is something you cannot blame clients for.

Climate. Know your environment well and don’t expect local market to adopt new media as quickly as other countries. You know your stuffs, but more than half the stuffs you know do not apply here. New media is still largely irregular, and in a way, that also fails to provide a definite direction on where it’s heading. It’s even more mocking when Web 2.0 companies hand out proposals citing to understand the local consumer trends when they have not done marketing/PR for all their lives. To arm yourself with only technological knowledge and proceeding in such manner, it’s liken to be wearing a XXXL shirt when you’re only 1.55m tall.

There could be more lacking factors, feel free to share with us. Tentatively, the above are some common deficits that most companies are - apparently - not too willing to explore and define. With a wide array of services replicated from other sources, we are fast becoming another China that thrives on replicas.

Singapore is definitely not big enough to substain so many companies too. The demand is low, while every other company is said to be attacking the same market. How sound is the prospect? It’s hard to tell for now. However, what I am pretty sure is most companies which we are looking at will eventually die of natural causes. The few companies which will survive will be those who are able to cater to the ever-growing needs of clients.

Having said so, we are still waiting to see a rare breed of individuals who are able to think big and deliver more than any current players we have. That is where they are still ailing in, anyway.

September 23, 2008 | Filed Under New Media

2 Comments 

Should “commercial activities” over blogs be regulated?

Recently, I opened up a round of discussion in Plurk to the question above and I am thankful for the generous feedbacks from those who participated. There were many points raised - although conflicting. As we know, there are no regulatory bodies in Singapore to oversee the rise of Web 2.0 companies. The blogging scene has become a free-for-all to some companies.

My other purpose is to raise some discussion of how to better the credibilities of bloggers and Web 2.0 companies. In such a small scene, the undesirable conducts are easily amplified and bring other legitimate companies down on their knees. Bloggers are no different, as per social networks and interest groups.

The first set of questions were;

1. Is there even a need for regulatory bodies?

2. Should product reviews have a set of guidelines?

3. If what we deemed as unethical business conducts in the real world adopts Web 2.0 approach, does going online mean it is any less unethical?

Some hidden interests of individuals I discovered during the past month tells me that we do indeed need a regulatory body. While I am not prepared to expose them openly, internet users and bloggers are unknowingly being misled through sophisticated networks which tell them nothing much about the hidden benefits. Opinions do change, when we know how a certain individual is promoting a certain service to us happened to be a shareholder compared to the opinions of another authentic customer without any vested interests.

Secondly, what legal redress can internet users seek when they realized they have been “duped” or “treated unfairly” online? When Associated Press issued legal demands to Rogers Cadenhead for the quoting of their news, Media Bloggers Association stepped in to help defend and mediate the clash. In stark comparison, this is precisely what’s lacking in Singapore.

The bloggers also came up with some counterpoints, all of which I agreed with;

A. How can bloggers, or readers at large, know of any vested interests of the promoter?

B. Regulating social media is counter-productive.

C. Sponsored product reviews may hurt Google Pagerank, and cause bloggers/promoters to hide their interests intentionally.

D. Some companies strictly enforce “positive-only” reviews.

There are a lot more considerations but I thought the above were the key essentials. As I had described to the participants, product reviews are only a part of the equation. There are also signups to social networking sites where personal data are being harvested and even sold on the basis of “the community”.

MDA once replied that they will be regulating the internet scene with a “light touch”. If there’s any regulatory bodies to govern such commercial activities, I believe that is the way to go. Despite the display of disclaimers, the lack of enforcement tells us that a disclaimer is just as good as a piece of well-written collateral. It serves no other purpose, because even in the event that a disclaimer had been breached, no formal sanctions will be brought forward against the offenders. In the real world, you would have been hauled into courtrooms for frauds or misleading advertising alike.

Some bloggers however, welcome some degree of regulation.

i. A set of protocols will be a good start.

ii. Bloggers and companies is to decide if they should hide their intentions and vested interests, and sacrifice their credibilities.

iii. Elsewhere out of Plurk, involve the major legal bodies, media associations, advertising and marketing boards to set ethical standards in the Web 2.0 realm.

The short discussion was only the tip of the iceberg. And it barely begun…

July 29, 2008 | Filed Under New Media, Social Media, Web 2.0

4 Comments 

What does the AP vs Blogger dispute represent?

It’s a tough question to answer at this point because the stands held by AP and the blogger, Rogers Candenhead, seemed to be conflicting. This is a unique situation despite the fact that a “resolution” had been reached.

I’m interested to see what kind of changes this dispute will bring about. In particular, how can traditional media work with new media to revolutionize the way contents are being shared. Secondly, how will this dispute benefit bloggers and content producers while still experimenting with new media.

1. Copyright and Bloggers Rights
The alleged copyright infringement was the key offensive issue in this dispute. Not only the amount of quoting was taken into consideration, the context of quoting also played a very significant role. A good lesson to learn out of this will be educating bloggers on what copyright is - especially in Singapore. It is not only the “copying” that forms the structure of copyright structure, as commonly believed.

Going by fair usage, a lot of our fame bloggers in Singapore should be totally punishable by copying and pasting news articles in entirety. You are still guilty, even if you had linked to the source. That also brings us to another point, if we are using the same exact headline as the news article, does that constitutes copyright infringement since the headline “belong” to them?

2. Traditional Media & New Media
The relationship is definitely being rewritten now, if you’re not convinced. With Web 2.0 tools widely available, bloggers and social sites are forging new standards for “fast” and “sharp” news. That’s without all the editing that traditional journalists have to go through. How can both work together and safeguard their own interests?

3. New Media users adhering to ethics
New media publishers like bloggers have frequently debated on whether we should adhere to a certain guideline when pumping out stories. The calls for content democracy are loud, but that can also lead to insensitive actions on our parts.

Allow me to cite this example, where an employee was fired when she prematurely released news on Wikipedia of NBC’s host, Tim Russert’s death. NBC was holding back the story to ensure all family members were informed prior to any open public broadcast. Here, we know new media users may not be as “professional” as traditional media veterans.

4. Media Bloggers Association
In US, there is MBA to help defend and mediate on behalf of Rogers Candenhead. Is that what we have here? Will the rest of the world take the cue from MBA’s involvement, and set up official associations to help defend bloggers? It will be a tricky initiative, especially in countries where broadcasters are owned by Governments, in full or in part. Perhaps, MBA is an example why such an association is even needed in the first place.

Is this lack resulting in bloggers being threatened with legal suits? It drew quite a bit of flake from bloggers, and we begin to wonder who can bloggers count on to defend them when media producers and companies are usually backed by corporate lawyers.

=====================================================

Although this dispute was fundamentally about the infringement of copyright alone, I gathered that a successful campaign “against” the traditional media will bring about the viral challenging of other media owners and corporate companies. AP is now in the process of designing a guideline, to what it says as “permissible usage of its contents”. Will that ultimately “control” and “determine” what bloggers can use and based their references on?

Is there any guarantee that bloggers will not ask for “more”?

June 26, 2008 | Filed Under Blogging, New Media, Traditional Media, Web 2.0

Leave a Comment 

Next Page →