More than just a broadcast medium (was UKNM: Arse)

[Peter Borg]

--- John Blower wrote: 

> Peter Borg wrote:

> 

> >For the first time, anyone can publish their own thoughts and

> >opinions and reach millions of people in a very short space of

> >time and with very little effort.

> 

> I think not. If I want the millions, I shall have to inform them of

> the existence of my page(s). And, unless I strike a particularly

> resonant chord in the breasts of my audience, I shall nedd tons o'

> money to tell the world.


Ok, ok, so millions is hyperbole in most cases, but a web page is not

the only way to reach people although it's the most prevalent in the

minds of western society.


If you have a strong opinion on a particular topic, you can shove a

web page up, feed the URL to a few search engines with little effort,

and chances are you'll start to get hits from people searching for

information on that topic. 


Admittedly, knowledge of how these things work is required, but it's

information that's freely available on the web itself.

 

> The situation you describe may have existed for 18-24 months in

> 1994-96. No longer.


Hmm, I'd dispute that for several reasons.


It doesn't take much for something to get noticed; weblogs are

fascinating, but you're right, the subject matter has an effect on

who will visit and why.


>From experience with the sites I'm involved in, I would say you're

more likely to get more visitors than you were in the time period you

mention. It's just that you get less of a share of those interested

in what you're saying.


The increase in the number of available forums is a double-edged

sword. Your page might be highlighted in more forums, but they tend

to have a lower membership or readership than before.


That we miss something or don't know about it, that it doesn't make

the news or isn't highlighted on the many pages we read doesn't mean

it hasn't reached many others.

 

> >It allows communication and information sharing on a scale

> 

> "Information" is only meaningful when it can be acted on.


This may be true but doesn't negate my comment. And to some extent I

disagree with this; I may not directly act on every piece of

information I absorb, but combined with other information it can

affect how I behave or act in the future, or change my views and

opinions.

 

> >Perhaps making use of this rather than treating it as a one-way

> >communications medium would allow organisations to perform better

> all

> >round.

> 

> The inherent inertia of large organizations militates against this.

> It *may* happen - but only at the periphery.


My point exactly; the internet is more than just a one-way medium,

however major organisations treat it as such. Silly to waste the

potential, really.


Peter.


=====

--

Peter Borg

personalpeter-b [dot] org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 the UK's totally managed affiliate marketing solution.

 ukaffiliates.com >> the net.working

 http://www.ukaffiliates.com /

salesukaffiliates [dot] com (mailto:salesukaffiliates [dot] com)

 telephone: 020 7691 1880 / fax: 020 7691 1881

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com