[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
cluetrain essay
All,
No web page. Just text typed in the email. Excuse the stream of
consciousness flow of my writing if that's not your cup of tea.
Enjoy.
Cluetrain Manifesto Essay:
OK yeah, I'm a person. I have conversations. I speak with a human voice
and quite frankly; I'm still wicked confused. The ideas in the Cluetrain
Manifesto are certainly interesting and they are delivered in language
that is witty and bright in tone. Some of the ideas I agree with but I
agree with them more because those particular sentiments speak to how I
feel as an individual, not how I feel about the world at large. Oh, but
HEY---wait, that's the whole point of the Cluetrain Manifesto right? The
big, fat, shiny, happy, warm, fuzzy online community where we all speak
with a human voice and it's a "real" democracy, where the individual's
vote actually counts for something. Well, it's a nice theory and sure, as
a consumer I think it would be great if some companies would worry less
about "positioning" themselves and just work on delivering their product
or service the best way they can, but I also think it's a bit too pat.
It seems as if the Cluetrain Manifesto is trying to take all the nasty,
icky stuff that has increased due to IT explosion and blow it all to bits
with a big dose of the "global village" stuff. The icky stuff, such as
seeing people as points on a graph, as demographics, as a means to make a
profit, well that's always been there. Just because 19th century merchants
didn't have spreadsheets, databases, and data mining doesn't mean that
they didn't wish for something like that to help them produce and sell
products and services more efficiently. Maybe I'm cynical and maybe I just
like 1984 too much, but that's what I think. Sure, it's great to theorize
that the big bad companies that are out to make money will actually listen
more to consumers because they are afraid of losing business. I guess
that's how it's supposed to work, but it seems far too simple to me.
Does everyone that drinks Coca-cola drink it because it really tastes good
and because they like it? Would they still drink it if no one else in
their group of friends drank it? Could it be that the "global
village," the "online community" is just a virtual version of the world's
big clique that is in turn made of several little cliques? Are we really
all so very unique? Or just uniquely similar? In Neuman's fourth chapter,
regarding diversity within mass society, he writes that,
The accepted wisdom, both among professionals in the communications
industries and among the scholars who study them, is that the content
of the media is determined by critical economic and technological
variables. Within the mass of mass society there is a vital
diversity of interest and tastes that are frustrated by the
processes of aggregation and homogenization practiced by the
major media industries." (Pg. 127)
At first this would seem to side with the "yeah let's all pull together as
a diverse community of individuals" theme of the Cluetrain Manifesto but
Neuman continues that,
But in pursuing the matter of different cultural and informational
tastes one step further to the question of different motivations,
perceptions, and worldviews, ones finds reason to pause. The
elements of adventure, humor, violence, sex, and pathos have been
consistently predominant in our primordial myths, nineteenth-century,
and modern media fare (perhaps in roughly equal proportions). On
close examination, the drama and comedy of the Spanish and black
television networks look surprisingly similar to the equivalent
genres in network television. The topics that college-educated and
non-college-educated people read in their newspapers differ only
by small degrees. (Pg. 127)
So maybe although we're all "humans" having "conversations," could it be
that we're saying mostly the same things and just putting our own spin on
it? I had an English professor once who used to say, "There are no new
stories. Everything has already been done." If "new" means just a
different variation on an ancient theme, then perhaps the Cluetrain
Manifesto is just a "new" take on our desire to be loved and accepted for
who we are. But who are we? No one lives in a vacuum and even the most
staunchly individualistic, elite among us have some sheep in them.
Under the guise of "individuality is important!", the Cluetrain Manifesto
tries to tell corporations (shepherds) where to lead their flocks
(consumers/markets). The Cluetrain Manifesto is trying to straddle the
divide between Orwell's nightmare, of which the tamest part is seeing
people as numbers, "6079 Smith W!" (Pg. 34); and Bush's dream of
individuals being liberated by the flow of information that will come to
them via the Memex, with a big dose of touchy-feely Stuart Smiley "I'm
important. I count. I matter." kind of mentality. I don't think it
delivers though and that's OK because I don't think it makes sense.
Robyn
"Reality is the leading cause of stress
among those who are in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner