CHICKMELIONfreelance
It doesn’t seem so long ago... perhaps only less than a generation behind us, when a common saying would flood the editorial offices through North America: “Get the Facts, and just the facts...” it was a long standing credo (or set of principles) by which the news industry built it’s foundations on. These principles where what the media’s credibility was hinged upon as well. People trusted the news based on this rock solid foundation; because in all honesty, without the proof to backed up a statement of fact, you are left with nothing but propaganda.
Then the onset of the internet flushed our worlds with information, both hard and heavy like a great dam busting loose. It was (and still is) next to impossible to monitor and mediate the viability as well as truth in the billions of tid-bits flowing freely on the information highway. This created a predicament for the information seeker. This new medium does not by any means run along the rules of it’s predecessor’s foundations... that old credo of “just the facts”. The internet now allows wide open grazing for free ranging spin doctors with well crafted words to pitch here and there (and dang let’s be honest)... they’re everywhere. It is clear we are standing on new foundations now, without having prepared any solid rules as of yet . You just have to know things have changed when even “sit-com” jokes gravitate around : “if it’s on the internet, it’s got to be true....”
So what does that mean for the business man? Better yet, what does it mean for their consumer?
We are definitely standing on the cusp of some tidal changes in the way we communicate and rely on information. However propaganda spinning is lethal in terms of breaching foundations of trustworthiness, reliability in information available, as well as polluting attempts to relay valid and relatively accurate statistical information. Here’s an example... we hear (at least I do because of the press releases that hit my desk on a regular basis) of the continual climb upwards and onwards of one of our apparently favorite social networking medium: Facebook. The statistics are quoted by many a blogger and entrepreneur. However (and I have asked the question myself many a time) how close to true are these statistics? How many individuals are running multiple accounts? How many are legitimate individuals (because it is not like we take on multiple alternate personas when on social sites.) How many are spammers and scammers? Hey just asking! We also see statistics of their new and very proud system fondly called the “like”button, where the success of a corporate can be flashed on the profile page touting the word of mouth acceptance of their users. My question has always been, “how many of these people who hit the like button are actual customers?” Hey , once again I’m just asking!
I caught a conversation in a status update between two corporates mocking people who just hit the “like” button as opposed to laying down a comment. “Lame” is what they called it. They must have forgotten how public the status updates really are. But this is the problem that spin doctoring creates... a general lack of mistrust in the information being transmitted. Now to further my example we have to factor in “crowd sourcing,” where an entrepreneur can purchase for a nominal price- their “likes.” Although I can certainly applaud the creativity of the marketing “go for the gusto” spirit, it does pollute and dilute the true facts now doesn’t it? This is only compounded with yet another “status update” where a friend was voicing their frustration over continual glitches in certain applications, (man I hear them on this) and the response was, “it is not the Facebooks culture to complain....” Say what? Some of the best products and the solid sales closes have come from overcoming consumer objections. It only makes us reach out further and strive to be better. What culture are we really creating here?
What appears to be occurring - is that the spin doctors spin a tale quoting numbers, all the while the disgruntled (thinking they are outnumbered) remail quiet. Hey, I smell an opportunity here for the online businessman who still runs by the credo of “just the facts.” Problem is, they now have to work doubly hard to win the trust of their own followers. While avoiding the pitfalls of potentially doing as what may “seem” sucessful, for the time being that is.
Now before you raise an eyebrow at me... just try and pitch a potentially successful online investment portfolio to an internet user inundated with the get wealthy scheme at every corner. Your true number may seem somewhat deflated in relation to their overstated enthusiasm. You would think that common sense would suggest the legitimacy of your portfolio over the mass of perhaps not so up front and more than likely overstated scheme of the schemer. But human nature kicks in, especially in the advent of this global's economic belt tightening... and human nature dictates that although twenty people may say the same thing, the listener will hear that one voice that says what they want or need to hear. Which may not necessarily be the truth. This is why the schemes of the schemers are so successful! Yet this is exactly what the entrepreneur with a legitimate pitch has to over come. This or outright mistrust. Take your pick, because polluted and diluted facts creates this sandy ever shifting and unstable foundation of information exchange. That is the culture we now live in. We can either accept it and strategize around it, all the while watching our information sources become suspect to dilution and tainting, or we can come up with some solid strategies to take back the facts and just the facts.
A cases of blatant propaganda spinning:
Not too long ago, Google was hit by a group of spammers. It may have appeared that the hit had originated from somewhere in China. It was suggested an up front legitimate technical college was the home of this spamming team, however we all know that a spammer’s MO is to hijack what ever resources they need in order to lay down their dirty deed while remaining incognito. Through out the exchange and finger pointing and name calling, Google laid down a pretty volatile accusation. They suggested that China was infringing on their people’s rights to freedom of information and internet access. They threatened the communist giant with an all out pull out from the scene. It was spun as a liberation movement for the people of China and their right to access modern 20th century information without the glare of Communist Daddy looking at the information first and filtering data seen as appropriate. To me it had a smack of irony, a free state trying to dictate how a completely unrelated communist governing body should run their business... presented in a manner that had a whiff of borderline blackmail.
Yes indeed, on the surface it seemed a giant was championing for freedoms and liberation ... below the surface was a completely different story. Google had presented to it’s investors the idea of global dominance, it really needed China to get onboard; but when only “Go-daddy.com” stood up and were willing to be counted alongside Google, all bets were off. China showed Google the door and Googles stocks went for a bit of a dive. Ok, this spin doctoring didn’t work, but imagine if it did. Imagine what would our global international relationships, peace and security would be looking like right now, just because of a piece of politic-”king”? Scary isn’t it? It kind of reminds me of the old parable of “never cry wolf.” Perhaps we forgot about that parable and need to recount it to our younger generation, because if we don’t put a cap on the validity of our information sources...what can we trust in a few years to come? Now there’s something to think about!
