Facebook for Mags

Mediabistro’s Fishbowl recently focused on the need for magazine publishers to go Web 2.0 completely. In their article the

MPA Digital Conference was heavy on the “you should be doing this already, you entrenched print industry.” Only this time, it was social networking and user-generated content freaking out the magazine folk: You’ve got to be making widgets to disseminate your content on all the social networking sites — Facebook, MySpace and infinite others. You should be shooting Web video everywhere your outlet goes, making producers of your reporters, editors, and other content pros whose under-the-radar days are numbered.

I wonder how hard more tenured staff will find this. Even for the younger generation is their an ick factor even if they have the technical skills to pull this off? This is very web 2.0 interaction and it must be where we are headed. Steve Borsch discusses his family’s own hand in the waning newspaper industry. “We’re not alone in finding less value in ink on dead trees than we do from our newsreaders and the web sites we frequent.” He thinks the interactivity of a blog network could just be what the doctor ordered. I don’t know how this translates to book publishing, as magazines are definitely more conversational and maybe this new platform is best for them. However, Michael Geist would reject this assumption, as he points to several good reasons why book publishers need to jump on the web 2.0 train.

I am quite interested in how more academic titles can take advantage of these online delivery platforms without taking away from their intended message. It seems even Dr. Seuss has gone digital. Ross Dawson reiterates the importance of a networked connection from publisher to clients:

“Absolutely we are shifting into a world where experiences and physical interactions are becoming more important than ever… We are yet to see whether the spaces where people spend their time are those based around books and collected information.”

#$%**@ Not again

With my publishing company up for sale I have lots going through my head. One thing, that I’m a pariah to any company I become a part of. The only company I was ever able to turn in my own resignation, since my departure has been doing amazing. They’ve expanded their publishing program and increased their staff. What the heck?

Time shall see what happens to us, hopefully our new parents want to keep the family together. But if not, should I find solace that some people have made their living on making it easier for the higher ups to rid themselves of superfluous employees?

If my other two layoffs have prepared me, I see a schedule of sleeping in, working out, Law-and-Order reruns, and finding humor in online antics.  

Network This

Social networking sites have great potential and I see their benefit. I first joined Friendster years ago after months of continual nagging from friends. I grew a nice list of friends (which felt like work by the way) and a couple people actually found me whom I had long since lost contacted with. I saw the use for free sites like this when places like reunion.com and other sites cost big bucks. But now that Friendster has long since been surpassed by the likes of MySpace and Facebook, I find it hard to keep up.

A grad-school professor of mine got me started on LinkedIn.com’s site. This is MySpace for the adult professionals, and I’ve found it to be quite useful. Not that I’m looking for a job, but it’s nice to have professional contacts for a variety of other reasons. But again, having only a couple of connections you put yourself in the nerd corner. Now, after all this I don’t know why I accepted an invitation to yet another site with the same professional connection capabilities. Doostang promises the same functionality as Linkedin, but is banking on a different presentation of the data.

Blogger Simon Collister finds the social networking angle of groups, in Facebook specifically, provides a pure benefit not to be overlooked:

It goes beyond simply gathering useful contacts and instead looks to build a potential network which can be called on to help achieve mutual goals…While essentially there is nothing new in terms of what the group aims to achieve, but credit is due in that it is leveraging maximum benefit to a new medium. Furthermore, it is leveraging maximum benefit according to a set of new and different values.

Some may argue it all sounds a bit sinister, but by using an online network the organisation as a whole should end up becoming more transparent. I can see a similar group working just as well for prospective MPs and this is exactly the sort of thing political parties should be investing time and money in to engage with a disaffected, young electorate.

On a different front I agree with one blogger that profiles on these social networking sites don’t often depict people in their truest light. They are friends with classmates or the people they meet on illustrious trips. They summarize themselves as good people with interesting hobbies. But the same can also be said how most people present themselves in person. I see both the pro and con to these sites. It’s just funny how companies enter the race for the next best social networking site. Wondering what will be next.