As seen on Twitter:

Roberto Rocha said:

And the bloodletting continues: CTV axed 105 positions in Toronto. http://is.gd/9iO4 1:29 PM Nov 27th

I replied:

Media players like CBC and CTV should be acquiring companies NOW. They seem to be losing big money to small decentralized players. 7:34 PM Nov 27th

Roberto Rocha said:

Interesting. What kind of companies? 6:09 AM yesterday

That’s the paper trail. Now what’s my answer? One hundred and forty characters on Twitter just aren’t going to cut it this time.

Allow me first to say that I’ve just finished reading Richard Branson’s new book, “Business Stripped Bare”, and I’m smack in the middle of Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”. As such I’m in an inspired state of mind likely common to my fellow entrepreneurs and I. Thus the notion of solving big problems is a wildly creative love affair for me so I’ll give it my best shot.

I’m coming from the view that traditional corporations are “on notice”—Stephen Colbert-style. Employees are numbers and statistics. We may as well have barcodes on our necks to avoid the paperwork of moving from one job to the next. The career jobs of yore have seemingly vanished to the point of no return.

There are exceptions to the rule though, like Canada’s Telus, which I think has a progressive hiring and retention policy based on what I’ve heard from friends working there. The opposite is likely more pervasive in the business world and I’m sure that robots are already learning our jobs.

Absurd I might be, but stupid I am not. And the current recession is a testament to stupidity and apathy. If this is the aftermath of deregulation then call me a non-believer, but I must in some way remain a champion for the true free market of the future. Now, with a spending freeze at CBC, layoffs at CTV, CanWest cutting 5% of its workforce, and prior examples like TQS’ implosion months ago it appears that we’re not sitting pretty in the media business.

I suppose we can all shut our doors and syndicate the Canadian Press until the cows come home but that alone won’t be enough to stimulate the vast diversity of the Canadian People. If jobs keep slipping—then who’s left—a bunch of executives pushing buttons? At the risk of losing more faith in the media, legitimate society is already moving to better things.

Alright. Alright. I’ll end my sermon here and now.

So we’re in a recession—one that Bill Clinton suggested at The Power Within Montreal last week will take one to three years to recover from. The media is tanking. Credit has dried up. And the world is shedding jobs, presumably to cut costs but ultimately to outsource more in the future. So what’s the solution?

People.

A common thread in both “Business Stripped Bare” and “Outliers” is that NO ONE can make it on his or her own. Hard work and luck are obvious tenants of success, but ultimately creating leaders and visionaries comes from the apprentice / mentorship model which isn’t to my knowledge commonplace at present. (Except at the top levels I suspect, where executives are groomed with refinement. Top schools also groom leaders. But I digress.)

As a young entrepreneur myself, I’m pawing at the gates of power. I’m also close to figuring out how to pick the lock. And to be frank, I don’t particularly care who’s on the other side of the door. This represents the cyclical ecosystem of intergenerational violence between Bosses and Workers. But climbing the ladder just isn’t the same anymore and moreover counterproductive in terms of creating a vibrant, creative, and productive workforce.

Short of getting a call from Twist Image’s Mitch Joel or Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson (who captivates me with his “branded venture capital” model), I would likely never accept to work for any other than myself. The missing links are too daunting to ignore but show me a job that includes freedom, creativity, and personal development and I would perhaps consider it. Otherwise, I’ve received less than a dozen paychecks in my life that didn’t have my own signature on it and I intend on keeping it that way.

To the more mundane task of figuring out the big media debacles, I think the problems stem from various sources: top-down executive control is exorbitant, companies are too highly focussed on the bottom line, personal development isn’t a priority, and amongst other issues the media companies themselves refused to be leaders—the easiest problem to fix was simply embracing the digital paradigm.

So who are these companies that media companies need to acquire or align themselves with in order to grow? Sure enough as I move this post into novel-length territory, I’ve figured out that they aren’t companies at all. They need people like me. They need independent bloggers, podcasters, and designers working together. They need media planners and marketers that are responsible for nurturing brands. They need political scientists, academics, psychologist and students that can debate issues of the day in order to make policy of their findings. They need hipsters, hippies, and people that understand and care for culture. And most of all, they need a grip on the day-to-day realities of the people. Media isn’t local anymore. It’s generic.

In terms of shaping a business model around this concept, I can’t particularly reveal all of my ideas for surely someone might cannibalize my model-in-waiting. Suffice it to say, it’s all pretty clear: own your means of production, hire functioning members of society, and deliver on your promises.

AOL Music is on the right track. They own and have affiliations with sites like Spinner, BoomBox, and PopEater. Buzznet is also on the right track with niche site brands like Absolutepunk, Stereogum, and The Gauntlet.

Are these acquisitions, partnerships, affiliations, or simply loosely matched sites that collectively produce massive audiences? I’m sure wide ranges of agreements have been inked but the real value in the model is the freedom that it affords to each decentralized web site. Each destination might even be wholly or partially independent, yet they are loyal to a flag, and one flag only. Common purpose allows for innovation.

We can then scale this model up or down which will mitigate the day-to-day and unforeseen perils of the free market. Some silos will fail and others will win great honours. The relationship is interdependent yet capable of withstanding shock. A dead tree branch isn’t representative of the health of a given tree on the whole. Companies, I would argue, should be run similarly.

And there you have it. I managed to wrap this up it under 5000 characters, or 36 posts in Twitter terms. More to follow on this—and other issues of the day as I continue to evolve.

Filed under: Economy, Publisher Side, Personal Branding, Politics, The Future, Leadership, HR, Venture Capital

Be First To Comment

Tried commenting on an Economist story but couldn’t. This is becoming more common unfortunately:

Readers have commented on this article (the window for new comments is now closed).

I shouldn’t be punished for having completed the new Sir Richard book and wanting to discuss the pseudo-op-ed-review of his new book. I would suggest adding a secondary message board for comments beyond the window especially since I read the print version of the article at the time and wasn’t compelled to comment until having completed the reading of Business Stripped Bare.

Filed under: Rants

Be First To Comment

Quick quote by Chris Brogan about his recent meeting with Gannett (USA Today, etc.):

“…I imparted a message that media makers need to atomize, to modularize, to give your ideas handles, and to start seeing themselves as being in the information business, not the newspaper business. I pushed with passion the idea that communities want better relationships with advertising, as opposed to simple placement against content, and that media organizations could actually lead this space, instead of accepting the editorial-only side of the business equation.”

This is a dangerous conversations to have in the public sphere. While monetization is important for obvious reasons towards “reviving” old media via “transformational change”, we should be weary of cannibalizing the presumed function of the news media: to inform. I’m from the view that such organizations need parallel properties. The first component should feature straight up editorial content. The second component should be community-driven and have all of the bells and whistles of any other web 2.0 site. The key here is to keep each unit independent from one another.

I fear that as media companies learn more about their audiences via community-driven initiatives, the greater the risk of content being created to cater to specific niche interests as opposed to the interests of the public at large. If conversely it is NOT the job of media companies to filter and inform the public, then we’re on the slippery path that involves dereliction of duty that risks rendering moot the very purpose of the news media.

On another more general point, I think Dr. Rus Jeffrey’s comment on Brogan’s site was an important reminder:

Great post, but I am amused by the title of the post. “Don’t Count Out Big Media - Yet.” Some of us in the so-called big media have been saying that all along. However, in the midst of the screamers of what’s called the “New Media” we are often drowned out. Many are content to listen to the conspiracy theory blow-hards, instead of realizing many in the “old media” are re-tooling.

Well said. And companies like Pluck are doing great jobs at converting many traditional outlets behind the scenes. The key is dilligence especially when social integration is far more costly than one might expect and there are very real political implications of allowing free speech en masse.

Filed under: Rants, Social Media, Politics, The Future, Social Media Advertising

Be First To Comment

Via IllDoctrine.com.

Filed under: The Future

Be First To Comment