This article in the FT took my breath away. Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, has warned media owners must find ways to attract and retain talent and create stand-alone digital divisions in order to compete in the era of internet blogs, open access and online communities. So far so good. He believes that the shortage in human capital would be one of the main challenges facing companies in the future, and successful companies were those that could "find, retain, and incentivise good people". This is because "young people, accustomed to quick response on the internet, were shunning hierarchical organisations where decision-making took a long time."
You saw this in the first web boom and you’re seeing it now… There are significant changes in the attitudes of young people. They would rather work in smaller, less bureaucratic companies.
So Sir Martin’s solution is to acquire or create separate online operations or divisions to run alongside digital operations built on traditional media brands?! Not to break up and streamline the bloated overpaid bureacratic and hierarchical organisations but swallow up smaller companies that seem to have all the new ideas. What’s wrong with making order in your own house? For an industry that’s suppose to advise and sell businesses branding, positioning and ‘creativity’, this attitude is astonishingly benighted.
Sorrell, when addressing an audience of regional newspapers, talked about the "difficulty of competing against websites that destroyed business models". Note the general tems ‘business models’ as if online commerce has brought an end to all business models. The fact that it only brought the media business models to its knees is easily overlooked by media executives with a geocentric view of their own industry. Referring to Craiglist that has been threatening revenues at US city newspapers he asks:
How do you deal with socialistic anarchists?
And goes on to say:
The internet is the most socialistic force you’ve ever seen.
I could hardly believe my eyes, this is almost too good to be true. It makes my derisory comments about the media industry all the more credible if someone in this position is so ignorant about the nature of the internet and online interactions. The fact that the internet is the most open, accessible, free-flowing, innovative and social space known to man complety passed Sir Martin by. I wonder what definition of ’socialistic’ he has in mind… mine equals despotic, politicised, rigid, wastful and ultimately lethal. And we are not even describing the media industry! I am reminded of a joke back in the old socialist days: Do you know what would happen if they introduced socialism in the dessert? They’d have to import sand within three months. But I digress.
Sir Martin also shrewdly observed that "while his agencies and Google were co-existing, the search giant could make life difficult for the advertising industry." I believe the appropriate response is…er, no shit, Sherlock.
For a more ’serious’ point I have to borrow one of Hugh’s cartoons:
Craigslist founder Craig Newmark tells CNET News.com’s Greg Sandoval he’s no "socialistic anarchist".
Anonymous
on Jun 22nd, 2006
@ 23:04 pm:
Online communities are socialist anarchists says head of WPP UK
Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, has warned media owners must find ways to attract and retain talent and create stand-alone digital divisions in order to compete in the era of internet blogs, open access and online communities.
Neil Major
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 10:31 am:
I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. He’s a Brit and socialism doesn’t mean that to us – it means more of a non-profit open way of thinking. Think Orwell (the man, not 1984) not Stalin.
Adriana
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 10:37 am:
Well, in as much as I am anything I am a ‘Brit’ (not an American) and know very well what socialism means here… And I do find it abhorent. I have no time for those who call themselves socialists in the orwellian fashion or any other fashion. Please, no truly sensible person would think socialist means ‘non-profit’ and open way of thinking. And if you think Sir Martin does see socialism this way – what could he possible have against “an open way of thinking”?!
Perry de Havilland
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 14:25 pm:
“Socialism doesn’t mean that to us”? Socialism is a system in which social interactions (such as markets) are replaced by force backed politically mediated interactions. Socialism is in fact a closed way of thinking that limits several choice. In its modern iteration, economically at least socialism has moved closer to the fascist model for controlling the means of production (i.e. a notion of private property is maintained but so extensively regulated that ‘ownership’ does not really mean control).
And as for the mindset of people who follow that route in Britain today, yes indeed, think Orwell (1984, not the man)… there are more surveillance CCTV cameras per capita in Britain that Israel.
Moreover Sir Martin Sorrell is clearly deeply ignorance of that either socialism or anarchism really mean. Socialist anarchy is rather like pregnant virginity or carnivorous vegetarianism.
Neil Major
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 16:33 pm:
I don’t know – I’m arguing with two people who clearly are from different political points of view points to me. All I’m saying is that I don’t see the web as it stands as some kind of market based metaphor – particularly as so much of it is volunteer based these days.
I guess what I’m arguing is socialist in his context means not market/profit driven. The anarchist context of his argument puts lie to the idea of centralism/market control you both refer to – as anarchism is about self organisation, which is inherant in so many web projects (Wisdom of Crowds and all that).
I certainly don’t believe in the web as some kind of perfect market metaphor. That’s for sure. Bazaar, debating chamber, coffee house yes. Market no. Post-autistic economics people.
Perry de Havilland
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 17:15 pm:
Bazaars *are* markets. And coffee houses is where the stock and commodity markets were born. Socialism is the antithesis of the free exchange of the bazaar, it is about politically mediated exchange.
Neil Major
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 17:18 pm:
…and meaning is determined by context. Sorrell isn’t an ideologue – he was using the term socialist anarchist to make a point that the web is both not profit driven and self organising. Come on, Perry, it’s Friday and apparently the happiest day of the year get down from your Ayn Rand high horse
Perry de Havilland
on Jun 23rd, 2006
@ 17:38 pm:
“…and meaning is determined by context”
And in the context of the internet he is wrong. There is nothing socialist about being not motivated by monetary profit. My blog gets 20,000 visitors a day and yet I feel no need to sell space for advertisements, does that make me a socialist because I run my site without regard for monetary profit? Also genuine charity, which is by definition not profit driven, is also the antithesis of socialism because it is voluntary and non-coerced.
Sorry but I cannot bear incoherence and Sorrell’s remarks are incoherent.
Paul Fabretti
on Jun 26th, 2006
@ 21:23 pm:
Now there’s aman who can see his empire crumbling before him!
Ok, so agencies will never die out but unless they realise soon that businesses are going to have to start listening to the hundreds of different voices on the internet instead of the agency alone, (like Hugh’s most recent cartoon “We’ll be right back”), they are going to be out on their ears.
Adriana
on Jun 26th, 2006
@ 21:46 pm:
Who says they’ll never die? I don’t see what’s intrinsic in their existence.
Brian
on Jul 2nd, 2006
@ 16:53 pm:
Socialism is the antithesis of the free exchange of the bazaar, it is about politically mediated exchange.
“Socialism” “Anarchism” perhaps you all need a definition of terms. “Anarchism” is s theory of political and life organization, “Socialism” is an economic model. Generally speaking “Anarchism” aka “Libertarian Socialism” are both models of interpersonal organization that follow a “Socialist” economic model.
I would add a response to your antithesis comment Perry.
Capitalism is also the antithesis of the free exchange of the Bazaar. The Bazaar was not a closed space, where only those who had the money, proper dress, and proper action were allowed.
Now the United States is covered in private property bazaars(shopping malls) and we’ve got this Net Neutrality bill coming down that’s going to destroy the work of small media guys like me, just trying to get real video and interpersonal stories about Iraq to the masses.
I’m sure you’ll deny it and say that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with freemarket practice, but then neither did the forced opening of Japan’s ports last century.
There is no free market, only free association. The impact of a “market” denies liberty, because it defines all resources as commodities. Unfortunately, not everything has a price.
Drew Spencer
on Jul 5th, 2006
@ 18:56 pm:
Interesing for two reasons:
a) I used to work for WPP.
b) I work in the world of employment marketing and was just advising a client today on the importance of building a community feel on their recruiting site – because of the changes in how the “youth of today” approach their work…
Great post.