I recently read a book titled Flickering Pixels (a really great book). The book highlights how technology has shaped our culture from the invention of written word through the digital age. In the book Shane Hipps (the author) made one note in particular that struck a cord (from a marketing perspective)... Blogging is Shallow. As much as I wanted to disagree with him I dont think I can. I read over 1000 blogs a day, and most of them provide 0 unique insight or depth... its just data streaming through at a rate too fast to digest. As a medium for communication a blog is much more robust than a 30 Second TV spot, but it does't hold nearly the depth that a book has. Blogs are commentary... but commentary about what?
From a branding point of view I don't think this is bad, at least not intrinsically. I can't help but wonder what this means for our world/brands going forward...
What happens when our consumers stop asking questions?
What if the competition says something inaccurate?
OR worse what if the a customer is misinformed and blogs about it?
Are we listening and able to respond?
Is it possible that in a new media age a lack of depth means brands must always play offense?
I think these are things that should be considered... Consumers are going to blog, tweet, post status updates, and talk... It's not safe to assume that an accurate message is being represented... Tools like Radian 6 are not only nice to have, but a requirement going forward.
But I could be wrong
