Markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally.
True
Just look at my descriptions for #8 & #9. With the evolution of the internet, and more people getting involved, we no longer depend on companies to tell us about themselves. We find their dirty little secrets from other consumers way before we meet with them. We run facebook checks on them almost as much as they do before they hire someone.
We are organized, informed, and we won’t stop now that we have a open door.
But yes, there are the people who aren’t connected to Web 2.0 and don’t look for the reviews or the feedback from others. They still trust what is told to them, but their days are dwindling and soon companies will have to change to work for those who are connected, or they too will end.
among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.
True/False
I’m on the fence with this one. I’m not really sure how they meant this back in 1999, and a lot has changed to make this point be true and false in 2009. I believe the InterNetworked markets part is true but the Intranetworked employees is false.
Lets look at the true examples:
As I said before people are communicating freely with people through blogs, like this one, twitter, myspace and all this social networking stuff that didn’t exist ten years ago. It is a type of communication that didn’t exist ten years ago and now has really changed the way the average consumer communicates. We trust other people with their product reviews before buying a product, we look at someone’s Ebay feedback before buying from them, we want to know other peoples satisfaction before we stick our necks out on a limb. Especially, with most people shopping on-line where we physically can’t see the product before it gets to our door, we want to know we will be happy like they were.
Now for the False:
People in Intranetworked companies are heavily controlled in their web presence. First off employers look heavily at facebook before even considering a candidate. How can we communicate effectively in that environment if we have to be controlled on everything before we even are hired. We have to have a unique attitude, but we can’t be seen acting in a normal manner that every college student behaves in because it might cause a bad reputation for the company.
After people are hired they are given a strict rule of conduct for online communications. They aren’t allowed to talk to anyone unless is it approved by someone or edited. People are even being sued by their employers if they break this agreement. Some companies post their guidelines but it is very rare, most others post a general Code of Conduct where they hint to their private policy. (Check out Google’s, Look at Section III)
Some companies now even hire people to do their Public Communications, so they don’t get embarassed by the other 3,000 employees. Kodak is a great example of this, they have a Chief Blogger and various other positions that are the human voice for their entire company. I don’t know about you but I think I might get a better dose of truth from someone who has the passion to talk about the company on their free time, not on the clock.
True
I believe the Manifesto hit this one on the head as well.
In the early 90’s, companies had the idea that they were the controlling source of what was being said about them. They pitched to the media what they wanted said, and if they didn’t get what they wanted they held a press conference. They were in control. People had to come to them for information.They paid for and controlled pretty much all the information that was released about them.
Today people have the power. But you might say, “Companies have their websites, they still pay for ads, and pitch the media, don’t they still have control?”
How often do you go to a companies website first, or if you do how much of it do you feel is infallible? People are always talking. They comment in blogs, and with the use of the hyperlink they are able to send you to other people who share the same ideas or give you real time examples. Companies no longer have the control.
Hyperlinks were just starting too take off in ‘99 when Cluetrain was written, and they have only grown since.Big companies are overpassed as the controllers and because of crosslinking and our friend the hyperlink we can take you anywhere and show you what really is going on. Follow my hyperlink in my example of how hyperlinking can ruin a reputation.
First click here.
This site is called web pages that suck dot com. It updates horrible webpages and gives user opinions on why they are bad. Plus they link to each site so the audience can see what the writers are talking about.
Number 6 on my last link was Leo Burnett Canada, an ad agency. I only found them because they came up on this site that told me they have a horrible web presence, and they brought me to them. They no longer have control over their first impression, thanks to hyperlinks. (Not to mention their site was so bad, I figured they were an Ad agency because I want to work for an agency, but I had to go to this site to make sure they were because I had no clue and didn’t get any answers from them.)
*Just a word of advice for any company that has a website, when you know your site is confusing and you have to put a link on the bottom that says feeling lost? that lets your user get off of the flash page. It’s probably a good idea that you have a bad site and should go with a different design, even if it doesn’t have a cool pencil that navigates the site.
6. The internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media…
They hit the nail on the head with this one. Everyone know the interenet has opened up the lines of communication. We are able to communicate with a vast amount of the world today, wheras 15 years ago, all we could do is pick up the phone and call someone we already met.
Check out this research topic from the Harvard Family Research Project, to find one increased use of on-line communication.
For the rest of my argument I will give you a list of what I can remember being around in 1999 and now in 2009: (Feel free to add any that I may have missed)
1999:
Phone
Instant Messaging
Chat Rooms
2009:
All the Above
All Social Networks (ie. Facebook, myspace, LinkedIn, etc.)
Podcasts
Google/Yahoo Answers
From the short list I came up with, we can see that the Internet is constantly adding new ways that we can communicate. This was a great prediction that the authors of the Manifesto wrote about ten years ago and it has been constantly growing ever since.
This is another one of those common sense ideas that I think really needed to be said. It is something that companies didn’t get when this manifesto was published and it still isn’t fully understood.
If everyone had the same voice, how would you be able to tell who you were listening too. If there was no visual element, we would be completely lost. When you listen to twenty different companies monotoned messages about how their product is better, we tend to not remember who it was that was saying what. If we really can’t remember who it was that was saying it, companies risk the possibility that their positive messages might be thought of about a competitor or they might have a competitors negative image thrown on them.
This would all be solved if each company developed a unique voice. YES, THIS IS DIFFICULT AND TAKES TIME. I felt that that would be better suited in bold capitols for the people who still don’t get it. Take a company like apple. They have a distinct voice, and you can recognize it from their start all the way to their latest campaign. Check out the videos below, for examples.
Apple 1984 Commercial:
Mac vs PC Commercial:
Iphone Commercial:
Now check out this commercial:
This Dial commercial, may have had a personality (all the ones without were so unremembered that I couldn’t remember them) but when your at the store you may remember the ad being for Irish Spring or Dove. There was not a strong company voice that we relate too, like the Apple Ads.
We recognize the companies we trust by the voice they speak to us in. If you don’t build your voice, you probably won’t be remembered and you might loose valuable business.
*Companies – Remember that you aren’t the only one out there, do something to make us want to remember you. Your being interviewed, make a good first impression.
opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural and uncontrived.
I don’t know how I could particularly argue about this one either. People often speak freely in their own mind. I really don’t have to give any support for this one because I am going to make you come up with your own supporting arguments.
Remember a time when you gave a presentation, you had the choice to speak freely and in whatever way you wanted to about that subject. You added your personality and ideas into the speech. Think about a time you were joking around with your friends, you don’t spew off facts like a robot. You add meaning and life to your voice and your thoughts. What you say is uniquely you.
If you need another example of what the authors are trying to point us towards, check out the video in #3 or go to YouTube and look at one of the billion videos that exist of peoples opinions.
I’ll add a little of my personality and my tone into this explanation. Check out this video that is pretty ridiculous, and is about someones opinion and with their natural voice.
(P.S. There is a ton of parodies on-line that are pretty hilarious, check them out)
among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
True
That is the third thesis of the manifesto, but it is more a statement of common sense. We all have been involved in conversations, and we all know what they sound like. Just in case you don’t please take a look at this:
I know where they are going with this. They are trying to say that when companies try to talk, they have to get rid of all this propaganda they want to get out and try to have a conversation. This hasn’t changed. Some companies understand this and really talk to us, there are others that try to talk to us but still throw in as many propaganda comments as possible.
I would love to hear your examples of companies that still stick to their message and ignore the conversation.
True but Failed
I know we are only on the second thesis but I believe this is one of the ideas that may have failed. However, it was only due to what happened in society and technology. It was easier to demand that companies realize that who they were marketing to was an actual person when you were dealing in terms of mass markets and the mass media. Now, due to market segmentation and the long tail, we are a society of niche markets.
Right for 1999
I believe they were. If we look back to the late 90’s, we see a society that had two major factors that people were connected to their businesses, Television and newspapers. The Internet was gaining popularity and the majority of Americans were connected, but it wasn’t the first place we turned to for information. We watched the news or read it. This allowed companies to easily put out their messages and we were left with the choice to agree with them or disagree. But other than that we had no real power. We had no place to go and complain, even if we complained in a chat room online; we wouldn’t have reached the audiences we can reach today.
Calling for a change in companies to realize that we were here and had a choice was a great suggestion for then.
Right for 2009
Today, they are a little behind the times. The best example to show that technology changed and voided this thesis would be Chris Anderson’s Long Tail. The theory of the long tail is that markets have segmented allowing for a wider variety for consumers and producers.
To put that into an example for you, we will look at Anderson’s most common example, the music industry. In 1999, the radio stations and MTV told us what the hits of the day were. This allowed for megastars to be made and they ruled the industry. Record stores would carry their albums because that is what the majority of their consumers wanted. Smaller bands, that fit into genres like ska or hardcore screamo would never see the light of day because of the lack of physical space to carry the product. Regardless there were people who wanted that music, which is why the Cluetrain wanted companies to realize there were people who fit into the niche that couldn’t be ignored.
The long tail is the act of the Internet allowing for endless space and room for people to split into niche groups. Small bands had a place to sell their product and consumers who wanted that music had a place to go find it. This is why this thesis isn’t really applicable today. We split ourselves up into groups and that how we like it. We are in our own demographic sectors, and we wouldn’t want to be put into that mass-market lifestyle again.
So the Cluetrain was wrong in this second suggestion only due to the fact that the market as whole evolved to meet the consumers needs.
To define your market niche please check out, about.com
True
This is obviously the logical place to start when looking at the 95 theses and their validity in 2009, is definitely the first thesis. I agree with the authors that markets are conversations. People expect the businesses that they deal with to talk with them. The days of a company sending out a message and the audience had only two options, agree or disagree, are over.
People now have the power to go on line and talk about the companies they deal with and if a company doesn’t talk back they will be the ones suffering. Especially now with social media companies have no excuse not to be involved in this global conversation.
A great example of this is the direct communication found on Twitter. Jet Blue Airlines uses twitter to monitor what is being said about them and respond to compliments and criticisms. Jet Blue isn’t the only company taking this approach; Skittles switched their entire web presence over to social media so they can interact with their market.
Looking at the Cluetrain’s author’s initial statement that started this whole manifesto, they were head on when they made this suggestion. Whether companies realized this on their own or they jumped aboard because of the advance in technology, whatever the reason the majority of companies have opened up that direct line of communication and we now converse.
For information on how to get your company more involved in twitter please check out Businessweek.
