Home > MEDIA > Big Media Slept on Titanic While Steerage Rowed to Shore

Big Media Slept on Titanic While Steerage Rowed to Shore

April 14th, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

bigmediatitanicOh I can just hear it.

“Why Rothchild, look at those pathetic little boats in the distance. Why ever are they paddling away? Don’t they know this is the Titanic? The greatest most indestructible ship the world has ever built?”

“Wretched parasites I say! Let them play on their little Twitters and YouTubes. Let them float along on their blogs. We’re on the Titanic, daaahling. Their miniscule machinations are of no concern to us.”

Ah, don’t you just love big media.

Apparently Google does. A lot more than it loves providing untainted search results. Because Google has decided to dance with the devil. To officially usher big media through the velvet rope. Right past those pesky blogging parasites.

And to justify this sacrilege they’re calling it “trusted results.”

Gee thanks, Google. Trust “this.”

What puzzles me is this move by Google barely got a whimper of response from the blogosphere. Where were the chanting protestors? Where were the snarky T-shirts? I was ready to burn my hard drive. Just couldn’t find a ready bonfire.

This is a big freakin’ deal. Big media basically slept on the Titanic while steerage rowed to shore. Web 1.0 and 2.0 happened while big media put the blinders on and continued with business as usual. They didn’t pay much attention to the pesky bloggers, sneered haughtily at MySpace and Facebook, and for a brief minute discounted Twitter. But then something dawned on them. If everyone in the steerage section can have their own boats, who needs the Titanic?

Engines full stop!!!

So committees were formed and meetings were had. Big media was having none of this. They after all, had gotten the steerage to the other side of the ocean in the first place. What right do these parasites have to abandon ship now?

Enter Google. Who now wants to placate big media by throwing out one of those 100 mile-wide trawling nets to drag everyone back into the boat for a big happy kum ba yah.

Forget that it’s sinking. Forget that it’s a lumbering oaf that can no longer glide agilely through the water. Did I say it’s sinking?

Google can prop up “trusted brands” for only so long before the Twitterers and YouTubers break free of the net and eventually find their way to shore. Google can pacify big media with digital harpoons to stop internet users from easily accessing those parasitic bloggers but eventually, steerage will make it to shore. And unfortunately for Google it won’t be what it apparently considers the “right” shore. Oops!

Tropic of Twitter, anyone?

Now maybe the reason this whole “trusted brands” thing has gone down without so much as a squeak is because it’s an insidious kind of misstep. The kind that doesn’t look so bad at first but eventually oozes over and turns an unnatural shade of green and results in the untimely amputation of a limb. And Google will surely traipse along for awhile as if nothing happened. Merrily building its internal structure like the skeleton of the Death Star. But eventually the damage will surface. That magical thing that made Google as ubiquitous as toilet paper will disappear. Sucked down the big porcelain vortex.

Yes, I did just compare Google to toilet paper.

Okay forget the toilet paper. This is the paragraph to cut and paste. This is why Google’s bow to big media is so huge. If internet users wanted a “trusted brand” they would skip Google and go straight to the brand site to begin with. Those “trusted” sites have been there all along. So if big media and “trusted” brands were what users wanted, Google wouldn’t have gotten such a foothold in the first place. Big media would already be getting primo page rank. Nothing to have meetings about. Nothing to twist Google’s arm over. And duh! Big media had the same opportunities as everyone else for building links and engaging in social media and gaining basic trust to achieve page rank. They just didn’t feel the need to associate with steerage. Until they started rowing…. AWAY.

Ding!

So what we have here is this shiny new algorithm to artificially alter page rank. To expose users to what they were running from in the first place. They didn’t want the corporate party line. They wanted the raw stuff. The untrusted stuff. The whole reason Google gained such huge market share is because people want content that’s REAL. Not manufactured. Not politicized. Not meted out in pre-packaged seal-of-approval bite-size morsels. Users wanted access. And to be accessed. On their own terms.

Google saw the lighthouse through the fog and created a product that leveraged the human desire to KNOW. The desire to communicate, connect, listen, and be heard. Without interference. WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. This is what Google gave us. A central place to find what matters. And to create what matters. Wrapped up in a neat little equal opportunity package. All of the AdSense and Analytics, the AdWords and Gmail, the Reader, the iGoogle. That’s just icing. The cake has always been the search.

And what made Google blaze past Yahoo! and whatever those other search engines were that we’ve now since forgotten ever existed, (oh yeah my favorite, MS SiN) is that it provided a level playing field and gave internet users “innocent” results. Sure, there were algorithms to handle spam, and a recent middle-of-the-night tweak to boost “recent” results to compete with Twitter. But ultimately users could trust Google results. If a story or a blog or a site or a page ranked high it was because someone trusted it. A lot of someones. Or better yet, it was something original. There was really never a need to manufacture another level of trust. It was already established.

So guess where this leaves us? Right where we’ve been trying to get away from: Big media dominating the news and controlling the minds of the masses. Telling us who we want as President. Telling us which morals are acceptable and which are passe. Squeezing out the voice of anyone who could make a real difference. (Anyone remember how the networks put the pinch on Ron Paul?) Is this really the same media you want influencing (controlling) Google?

Oh hey! China would love this. And all those other countries that use the iron grip of censorship… banning and controlling what the populace is exposed to. Maybe China can have a meeting with Google so they can have their own version of “trusted results.” I’m visualizing a “trusted results” algorithm for people who live in Israel. And one for Iran. And one for… New Jersey.

All of the sudden ‘trusted results” have become “tainted results.”

So while big media was missing the boat, Google was missing the point. The beauty of Google and search engine ranking has always been that anyone can rise based on a combination of quality of content and strategic linking. And then Google has to go and pull the plug on its own juice. Compromising what made itself relevant to begin with.

Dropping itself several places in my mental page rank.

Google, are you paying attention? I know your little crawlers will be stopping by in the next 3-5 days.

Funny, I get the feeling I may eventually be looking for a missing Gmail account.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Always a pleasure to read your stuff Michelle.

    I'm not sure if what you're predicting is true or not, because who knows what the future holds for anyone, including the mainstream media and Google, despite their hopping into bed together.

    Still, your comments raise an interesting topic regarding power. He who controls the information has the power. There is no question that we have all given ourselves over to Google in so many ways I've lost count.

    People used to complain about Bill Gates and Microsoft taking over the world. While Microsoft still controls the spigot of online information because of the prevalence of its operating system, Google is the well from which that spigot is drawing information.

    I was celebrating a Passover Seder recently and the lines that always make me shake my head read: "In every age, some new freedom is won and established, adding to the advancement of human happiness and security. Yet, each age uncovers a formerly unrecognized servitude, requiring new liberation to set man's soul free."

    I'm not sure if everything is as conspiratorial as you have suggested, but I can see us all looking back one day and saying, "When did Google get all this power, and from where?" And all we'll need to do is look in a mirror.
  • Michelle,
    You always know just how to say it. I've always been a big fan of your writing style, wit and repartee but you've really nailed it here with your correlation to the "sinking ship".

    We were all 'introduced' to Google in early the 90's. I remember my ISP guy in the Mercantile Bank building in downtown Corpus Christi checking my first ever non-dialup connection with Google's home page. I asked him "who's that?".

    I quickly adapted to the 'little guy' (basically anyone NOT AOL) at that time and grew to trust most anything the outright geniuses in Mountain View, CA churned out.

    I read a couple of blogs a few weeks ago regarding Google's updated algorithms on "trust" and "brands". Without incisive knowledge in SEO, page ranking, tags and other tools of the trade, I shrugged my shoulders and thought "that seems like a pretty big deal, but what do I know?".

    I agree with Eric regarding your post as "eye-opening".

    All titans began as infants and most infants never become titans let alone adults! Survival of the fittest? Adaptation to remain relevant to the "audience" will always prevail as emerging AND traditional media become more about engagement and participation; less about control and one-way communication.Michael Torano
    @TexanAtHeart
  • Michelle,

    I really enjoy your writing style, and appreciate the voice of concern that has otherwise had what appears to be little coverage in the blogosphere.

    There was, however, some depth of discussion back at the end of February, beginning of March, around the time the "Vince" update came out, and Eric Schmidt was spouting about the brand being so important.

    It just hasn't yet garnered the volume that, say, the DiggBar incident has this past week.

    Personally, I really have no major worries about the evil intent of Google and loving the "brand".

    One of the golden rules of success in business has always been building your brand - becoming known in your market as the leader, or one of the leaders.

    Another has always been - who can turn on a dime and adjust to changes in market conditions?

    Personally, I'm not worried much. It hasn't ever taken long for the steerage to get back in a position of strength in the 14 years that the web has been used as a marketing medium.

    People need to adapt. We'll adapt. With or without Google.

    No matter how much money the big players throw at it.

    Like Microsoft - they're rolling out Kumo.com in June. The next MS search engine. Spending $100,000,000 to advertise and promote it.

    Yet even MS is going into that knowing they have little chance of taking over search. They're keeping MSN Live going. And still trying to do a deal with Yahoo.

    And to be sure, they've already stated that we shouldn't think of Kumo as a competitor to Google or Yahoo. That it will provide LESS results, just more refined. Sure it will...
  • Eye-opening post, Michelle. Your parallel to the Titanic is so relevant. It never ceases to dissapoint me how the "little guy" starts out to reverse the ills of the out-of-touch "giants," only to inevitably become one themselves. If even Google can succumb, then I guess it's one of those chains that was not meant to be broken. Make way for the next "little guy."
blog comments powered by Disqus