Terry O’Reilly writes:
A strong sign of television’s slow fall from media supremacy came in 2005, when I was honoured to represent Canada on the first-ever Radio Lions jury. There we were told of two interesting trends: that entries in the TV ad category were down and that entries for the “Cyber Lions” category–that’s for online marketing–were up. To put this in perspective, the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival was founded on television and film in 1959, and those two media have been the flagships ever since. Until now.
Ten years ago I was educating people about what they might expect from their websites. For many medium and small businesses, it was their first website, and they wanted to know how it was going to make them money. Nowadays, a web presence has become a part of almost every business’ “price of admission”. Ten years ago, you weren’t credible without a business card and a Yellow Pages listing, and people were already seeing that before long a website would become a part of the minimum credibility standard.
Hugh MacLeod really captures it sometimes, even if you sometimes have to pause a minute to decide whether you agree or disagree, and in what way. That’s how it is when he explains the main point of the Internet.
Perhaps the Internet has helped redefine “socializing” as well. But it’s just that — the Internet is all about connecting. Whatever your ulterior motive, it’s about connecting first. And even if the Internet really only represents a potential cash cow in your mind’s eye, if you don’t connect, really connect, it won’t ever become that for you. So consider what it is you’d like the Internet to be for you, then ask yourself: “What kind of connections do I need to make in order for that to take place?”
An article on TwiTip this morning says Twitter will replace Google search. Excuse me? My first response is that this prediction is like trying to convince a gardener that the hoe will replace the spade. It seems we have a need for both, if you ask me. I've been using Twitter lightly for a couple of months now, mostly for following a few Twitter streams that are of interest. This is, in fact, how I found the article with which I'm disagreeing. Twitter is in fact a highly useful tool, provided you apply it to the proper job... and though it can be used in this way, search is not the job to which it is best suited.
The article uses the example of a business professional who needs three images for a presentation the next morning, and can't find the specific ones she wants on a stock photo site. Turning to Twitter,
I've often wondered about the relationship of corporate size and corporate wrongdoing. Is there a connection beyond the coincidental, beyond what one would expect statistically by the fact that more people means more opportunity for wrongdoing? One of Google's well-known guiding principles has always been "do no evil."1 I have to credit them for the gutsy move of putting it right out there like that... but you know eventually it's going to draw criticism. Given Google's now-gargantuan size, this motto, and a recent event or two, it only makes sense to see if these dots connect with my recurring question about size and evil.
