Some of the readers of this blog have asked me why I do not write more about business issues that directly affect my work at Thomson Reuters. This is a very fair question especially since I find the issues raised by the digital content markets we serve among the most interesting business topics of our time.
My answer is two-fold. First I write for pleasure not for any particular business purpose. Thus I write when I have the time (typically on long airplane trips) and when I feel I have something to say (unfortunately less frequently than my time in the air). Much as most of my pleasure reading (science and technology aside) tends to be serious fiction or as a classical pianist might prefer to play jazz when not at work I usually prefer to explore areas beyond my work in this blog.
Second when I do write about the company explicitly such as in the post Intelligent Information Comes of Age or in one of the presentations I have given in an official capacity (e.g Trust in the Age of Citizen Journalism) I run the content through Corporate Legal and Comms. While this is good corporate housekeeping it tends not to add to the spontaneity of the writing so I keep it to a minimum.
If there are any particular business issues that readers would be interested in post a reply to this entry and securities laws permitting I will try to address them.
Dear Mr.Glocer I share your sentiments exactly. I am a technologist (developer and interpreter) by profession but I like to read very different things in my spare time. My latest spare time reading is Shakespeare’s sonnets and collection of world’s great speeches. While I am not looking to get specific business insights I would like to get your perspective on social networking – Facebook MySpace and other similar communities. There are some not-so-savoury side effects described in this humorous article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4249605.ece. But it would be nice to hear from somebody from a company whose business thrives on being a purveyor of information. Saurabh Sircar
The London Times article on social networking you cite is amusing in the facile way that it is always easier for a commentator to criticize than build anything of value himself. However like many such opinion pieces it sets up a false target to attack. There is certainly no shortage of vapid content on Facebook My Space and other consumer-focused social networking sites but this is just the first wave of these Web 2.0 services. Much like the first use of television was to broadcast soap operas and wrestling shows so many first generation social networking services are geared to entertainment-oriented youth and early adopters. The commentocracy is also generally uneasy with the loss of monopoly control over publishing tools. A more serious criticism of these social networking sites is that they attract online stalkers and commercial spammers. This is of course no different than the off-line world but should be equally subject to laws that permit free speech and association but prohibit assault and harassment. The telephone can also be used to order a gangland hit or to shout racial abuse but its many socially beneficial uses outweigh its potential abuses. In general I think social networking is a very positive force in society. We are only beginning to see some interesting applications in business (online trading communities professional networking etc) but I believe we will see numerous elements of Web 2.0 technologies and business models finding their way into the mainstream. See for example http://www.findlaw.com a community which links law firms to their clients (operated by Thomson Reuters); http://www.linkedin.com a social networking service for professionals; and even http://www.facebook.com which has its more serious uses as well . I think over time what we will see is that social networks become less and less destination sites and become ever more a part of the basic fabric of online collaboration professional and recreational. So your Outlook email directory will likely evolve into a more open federated directory where participants can update their contact details themselves plaxo-like (see http://www.plaxo.com) and include more information and photos/videos about themselves. This will require greater universal bandwidth and the maturation of the computing cloud but the pieces are all already in place. It should be fun to explore these new networked worlds. For me the benefits greatly exceed the risks. tom glocer
Dear Tom While the London Times article was written with good wit I quite agree with you that it was overtly critical of a platform that the writer didn’t manage to figure out. I have a different question however and would love to know your view. Platforms like Linkedin or Facebook are in essence walled-gardens. Yes some (like Facebook) have pushed their walls back a bit (by allowing development of widgets in conformation with their platform) but they are not completely open. Given that a large premise of Web 2.0 is to essentially tear down walls that create cyber-boundaries and encourage collaboration and collective thinking do you think these walled-garden businesses are kind of chopping off the very branch of the tree they are sitting on? Sincerely.
A good question. I think what you are seeing played out is the tension between total open source freedom and the desire to maintain some level of proprietary control so as to have something to sell. Rare is the Red Hat that can make money off of true open source content or software. More common is the subtle reservation of proprietary features or content to have something to sell or IPO. I dont think this makes any of these services “bad guys” but they are not a pure public service either.