|| Return to Special Reports ||
Web Letter Answer || John's Response || The Result || Finally || Editor's Note
The Challenge: John writes,
Looking for information on how organizations organize their Web activities.
We're in a traditionally organized association, having turf battles at the moment over whether control over our Web activities belongs in MIS or in the editorial division of the publications department.
I'm in publications, with a lengthy editorial background.
For our president, the question comes down to this: What is the demarcation line between content and technology on the Web?
My view is that there is no line of demarcation: The medium and the message are inseparable. The content is what the reader sees when he/she enters our site.
MIS's view is that the content is the words only. Everything else is technology. The medium and the message are not only separable, they are two entirely different functions.
We'll be having meetings for a while, hashing this out.
Are there any authoritative sources out there I can marshal to my side of the argument -- or am I way out in left field.
Thanks for any help you care to give.
My position of authoritativeness comes from designing and developing numerous Web sites with a variety of clients. I side with your editorial approach, because the technology is simply a means of distribution, not the focus.
Let me explain; so many of my clients rush to me with dreams of being cutting edge, of video on the Internet, HotJava, Director's Shockwave, technology, technology, technology. By appealing to this lower end (and lower percentage) fascination with technology, they actually limit their audience. Because it's not the technology, the bells and whistles that amaze people.
We in multimedia fell into the same trap with CD-ROMs, appealing to a supposed majority in love with technology, while the majority of the world hated what we were doing because it was so frustrating working with it. Tricks tend to fail in multimedia and on the Web. The more you notice the medium, the less you notice the message. That is the fault of a technology-centered approach.
I think the choice should be in the hands of the content providers. Just a few years ago it was considered chic to sit in at a CD-ROM professional meeting and exclaim, it's all the content. Imagine trying to do that in any other field, like a meeting of book publishers. Duh, of course it's the content. We don't care how our TV's work, we care that they work. When they don't, the message is lost.
The same goes for the Internet. I think it would be a mistake to put a Web site in control of technology, especially given the limited capabilities of the Web. When all this futuristic fast modems/all connected/amazing world of the future comes, we can focus on the technology. But I take the slow and sure approach, focusing on good writing and, are you ready for this, the most amazing technology available on the Web:
the imagination and participation of the audience.
We forget that what really drives all the media is content and audience participation in the interactive content. So while others pursue HotJava (which I will, when my audience can handle it), I focus on content, editorials, storytelling, and ways to make the audience part of my site. That's why they keep coming back.
In closing, I was a preliminary judge for the IICS online competition. We had numerous big clients who focused on technology, with huge graphics, lots of slow QuickTime and audio, and a mixture of disorganized approaches focusing on technology. I had 15 minutes to initially judge each site; over 2/3 of them took up 10 minutes of that time just waiting for the page to load. Many were selling moves, with the expressed objective of informing their audience of what was going on. So they felt they had to impress them with technological tricks, because Hollywood is so high tech...but the Web isn't yet. For a $6 movie, I would have spent $10 (in download time of movies, in waiting for the screens to load, remember I'm paying to view the Web when all this technology is getting in my way). Plain and simple, failed objective because of love of technology, which narrowed down their audience.
In closing, remember that the much larger audience is coming online. They aren't in big cities with T1's, fast modems, and all that, they are on plain phone lines with slow modems. And like every other medium, once the hype wears away, we look for content.
If you want a long term investment, focus on content and let that drive the process. If you want to be first on the block and create an empty site, focus on technology. But I find that a mixture of technology and tradition are the best signs of a good Web site. Especially one like yours, based on Human Resources. Key word: human.
Peace.
Thanks, Michael, for your quick response. Looks like we were both up late last night.
I'm glad to see there's intelligent life out there that shares my views. You were much more articulate on the subject than I have been.
If you don't mind, I'll probably quote you if the need arises.
I've included the past message traffic below to jog your memory, but I wanted to thank you again for your comments and update you on events here.
Content won.
Thanks for your help.
John
John writes:
What I'm seeing in my business reminds me of the old stories about the Gold Rush. Everybody's loading up their wagons and heading to the promised land on the Web. But when they get there they realize:
1. They don't know how to pan for gold
2. They don't even know what streams to pan for it in, and
3. Winter's coming, and they've been roaming the countryside so long they haven't had time to build a cabin.
In other words, lots of organizations have taken the "ready, fire, aim" approach to getting on the Web. And now that they're there, they are finding they must answer questions they hadn't anticipated earlier. These questions include:
-- Why did we do this?
-- What do we want to accomplish now that we've done it?
-- How will we know if we've been successful?
For larger organizations, there might be another question (which we were facing when I first wrote you):
-- Who's in charge?
Organizations that have to answer that question will almost always find themselves describing it as a turf battle. But it's much more: It's the first effects of a cultural change that will fundamentally shift the ways many of us communicate, organize our employees and workload, do business, even (for some folks) live.
As Negroponte says (and as you said, and as I've been saying), it isn't the hardware that makes makes the medium valuable, it's the information. And the role of MIS -- just like the roles of technical experts in every other communications medium -- is to support the dissemination of information, not to create the information or to lead the effort.
Thanks for your help and thanks for reading my pontifications. And happy new year.
It's not a question of content or technology, but the melding of the two. Look for our future article on mixing technology and tradition. Thanks John for allowing me to print this in the abridged version, names changed to protect the innovators. Peace.