Last week I wrote about the new “2.0″ version of content as just an aggregator, (their words, not mine). What I find most interesting about this is that Mr. Semel says the company doesn’t have a point of view. Now, as companies look at how they contribute to the value chain, shouldn’t they have a point of view? Admittedly, I’m taking the comments out of context, but smart marketers need to have a point of view. As I stated at the time, “aggregators need to offer value or suffer disintermediation.” Media derives from the Latin root for “middle.” The Web enables consumers to get to companies directly and (ideally) easily. The Web enables consumers to get to consumers directly and (relatively) easily. The only point in being the medium, being the man in the middle, is if you add something to the mix. Yahoo, other companies seeking to aggregate, and those marketing folks who need to sell them really ought to consider what their point of view is. Stand for something. Or get out of the way.
Previous post: The 20th Century is dead.
Next post: Convergence is trying to arrive; ill-prepared marketers don’t want it to.
Hmmm, yeah, good point. Why use an aggregator at all if it doesn’t offer a bold perspective, if it just acts like a dumb robot?
I just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with you 100% on this one. You’re absolutely right that if companies aren’t adding anything to the mix, then there’s no point to them being there. I’d like to see more of these “aggregators” standing for something.
Thanks, Bill and Anne. I’d say that any perspective is better than no perspective at all. If your entire message is “we pass information from one place to another,” you become too easily commoditized. PVC pipe also passes things from one place to another. Nobody cares about it at all. At least copper pipe does it with panache. Would you rather be PVC or copper?