WEB HEAVYWEIGHTS: Keen vs. Weinberger Brawl Gets BloodyPosted by Amanda Chapel
Diametrically opposed Keen and Weinberger happened to be panelists for the session, “Disorder: Feature or Bug?” The debate was about “the value of authority in a connected world.” According to session materials: "The greatest business challenge that the New Network poses for many companies is also a fundamental social challenge. The old categories, boundaries, hierarchies, and scarcities are being swept away. To what extent is that a good thing, and to what extent is it a threat to what we truly value?” Bottom line: that’s everything folks. THAT'S THE WHOLE MEGILLAH! The following are two tapes of the exchange that pored out into the Westin's lobby. (Special thanks to Nick Douglas.) WEINBERGER-KEEN LOBBY DEBATES PART I It began with both establishing position. Keen came out first and emphatically asserted that a radically-democratized flat culture is not good. Weinberger then refuted the "flattening." He responded that Keen's assertions were in part a problem but also a known "condition of the Web," i.e. "traditional authorities are not authorities." Weinberger made the important point that the Web was good at "finding things for each other." They both then addressed each other's respective systems for vetting cultural value: traditional institutional hierarchy vs. the now popular flat system. Keen made the point that the traditional system was good at packaging coherent intelligence where the Web was definitely not. Weinberger responded that the issue is that an exclusive regime comes with a price. Only a select few make it to the top and a lot of potential talent is overlooked.
WEINBERGER-KEEN LOBBY DEBATES PART II Keen came out strong in this round and went right after Web 2.0's single greatest vulnerability, i.e. what is the economic model for democratized culture? Keen hit hard saying that there was absolutely "no evidence that a business model will emerge." As such, the "Long Tail economy makes no sense." Weinberger conceded and agreed. "We don’t know and anyone telling you they do know is lying." He described all transition (not just this one) as characterized by pain and danger. "'Disruption certainly characterizes this period; the Web is a disruptive technology." BUT, he asked, "Then what do we do?!" Keen smelled blood and directly went after Web 2.0 second biggest vulnerability. He shot at Weinberger with an irony and a dire warning: long term, the Web he said will actually make culture inaccessible. "With the 'copy model' as a business model in effect dead, the only way artists will be able to support themselves is by concert venues." And ironically, "only a select few will be able to afford them." Bottom line: Keen ended that round again underscoring that there was just no evidence that a business model will come along. In the last round, Keen the aggressor went right after another Web 2.0 weakness, i.e. the zealots claim that technology was inevitable. Keen said that unlike the Web optimists, he was "not a technological determinist." He threw out a strong analogy drawing parallels with the environmental catastrophes of industrial revolution. He said, "But we have a choice." Exhausted and beaten, Weinberger said: "We’ve been talking about these issues since the beginning of the Web. I am optimistic about market of interest and attention."
COMMENTARY History vs. Superstition... That's what it all comes down to.
Bookmark This
 Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
First of all, thanks for positng this. It is an excellent discussion and I am keen to hear Keen next week when he appears on Tuesday, July 10th here in Chicago at the www.BIGFrontier.org event at the Mart at 11:30am.
But, having watched the conversation, it was a civilized debate. Since when did we start calling that a "brawl"? But I forget, Amanda, you are in the PR field and PR people are paid to hype things.
Intellectual brawl, Mr. May. Let's try not to be so literal.
Anyone who has read this blog, (whether you love it philosophically or hate it) knows it's "style". So calling the video a "brawl" is exactly as this blog has always used the written word. Not sure what's so bad with "hype" either? Got us to read it? Besides it being a good (and let's not forget) "edited" intellectual debate, I'd say it makes one of the very points this blog has been "attempting" to make since it's inception. It's really worthy of a greater, broader and "civilized" debate within our industry.
So, bottom line, how does someone who is talented in a particular area (whether music , drama etc..) actually get the break one deserves so that the world can benefit from one's talent?
Blogging won't do it because there are so many blogs that the probability of striking a critical mass audience is very small. For this same talented person, in order to find success within the old "oligarchic" framework, this same person needs to be properly "connected" ie. except under exceptional circumstances, someone else will decide whether this person will actually make it. So the vacuum still remains ie. how does a talented person actually make it to the top. The other question also remains: Do the people that actually do get the exposure they get, are they really the creme de la creme? I mean, who today decides who is talented and who makes it?
My question to this respone is "who makes what?" What is your definition of success? Monetary wealth in a commercialized sense? I believe that talent will ultimately rise to the top and achieve it's own form of success. As an artist, I'm not sure that I would want my work qualified as success because it is accepted by the mainstream or sold on Amazon. Artists do what they do because that is what they do, not because they want to "make it".
I guess it's human nature to support these debates, but I think they serve the debaters more than us. According to the history books, there is nothing unusual going on or anything to be alarmed about. For hundreds of years, innovation has endured cycles. A challenge -- not overcome by existing tools -- emerges. A creative person invents a tool to solve the challenge (and they probably innovate more for the love than out of business aspirations). New tool appears to put entrenched institutions and individuals, who are experts on old methodologies, out of business (think scribes outmoded by the printing press). The threatened predict defensively and strategically the end of the world. Some of the outmoded who are smart and ambitious -- or slow and well-funded -- discover years later how to capitalize on the innovation (think the film industry and the once-detested video rental shops). Institutions soon hold the innovation as sacred as the old tool (and often more so). And then the process starts all over again.
We'll figure how to capitalize on this Web 2.0-inspired "New Network" stuff -- some of us ethically, others, unethically -- and then start fretting about Web 9.0. "The world is not growing worse and it is not growing better -- it is just turning around as usual." -- Finley Peter Dunne
Jeff,
Apparently, you did not watch the second tape. Listen: the Web is a radical disintermediation and disruption tool. The argument that something will come of it is nonsense. That's a total superstition. Secondly, to NOT account for the destructive aspects is irresponsible. How many industries does it need to destroy before you (plural) wake up? Lastly, tech and its integration into society is NOT a given. There are numerous tech advances that society has ultimately deemed taboo. - Amanda
"Apparently, you did not watch the second tape. Listen: the Web is a radical disintermediation and disruption tool. The argument that something will come of it is nonsense. That's a total superstition."
I watched both videos. Take the example of music, and how the Web has supposedly ruined a musician's chance of making a living: "'With the 'copy model' as a business model in effect dead, the only way artists will be able to support themselves is by concert venues." And ironically, "only a select few will be able to afford them.'" Using the current state of the music industry as proof that Web 2.0 can't produce viable economic models falls completely flat for me. How does Andrew Keen know that the only way bands will be able to support themselves is through touring (besides reading that in countless circa-2000 articles by pundits who aren't musicians or in the industry?) Is Andrew Keen in a band? Does he attend music performances several times per week and check the prices? Does he have acquaintances who are in successful major label and indie bands? I highly doubt it. Necessity is the mother of invention. There are very critically acclaimed artists, now awake to the fact that CD sales won't carry them, making a respectable living off of selling their music to commercials, offering more merchandise, and doing motion picture soundtracks. And you know what else: They are also allowing people to download_their_entire_albums_for_free. True, there will be artists who can't attract the large crowds -- like the tired example of the Grateful Dead -- to offset free recording trading. There will be artists who can't sign advertising deals. There will artists who don't land in films. But, you know what, they'll probably make art their Plan B. (Or they'll do it simply for the love and in poverty like many wonderful artists before them. Every artists does not deserve to be both affluent and critically acclaimed like David Bowie!) Today, with the accessible, economical recording and distribution tools, you can still gain a sizable following and not quit your day job. Uh, thanks to technology. "Secondly, to NOT account for the destructive aspects is irresponsible. How many industries does it need to destroy before you (plural) wake up?" Birth and death are life. Evolve or get out of the way. I am having to. You (plural) are having to. New industries will arise, as others pass on. It's going... to... be... okay. "Lastly, tech and its integration into society is NOT a given. There are numerous tech advances that society has ultimately deemed taboo." Like what? Yes, I'm not still using an 8-track player (I do prefer vinyl), but the current state of the Web and what's to come is so huge -- not talking about all of the individual parasitic companies, but the technology -- that I don't see us not being forced -- or better yet, encouraged -- to figure it out. It's crazy, people adapt. I mean, look at Strumpette: Its MySpace page has more friends than mine! I still don't like the BS artists and Web 2.0 parasites either, Amanda. But I hate the players not the game, er, technology. You know what I mean.
- "Take the example of music, and how the Web has supposedly ruined a musician's chance of making a living... Using the current state of the music industry as proof that Web 2.0 can't produce viable economic models falls completely flat for me."
Excuse me numbers don't lie; and you're opinion about the numbers don't matter. There's not a responsible economist on the planet that would not agree that the Web killed the music business. - "Is Andrew Keen in a band?!" What the fuck are you talking about? - "There are very critically acclaimed artists, now awake to the fact that CD sales won't carry them, making a respectable living off of selling their music to commercials, offering more merchandise, and doing motion picture soundtracks." Of course there are exceptions. - "Birth and death are life. Evolve or get out of the way. I am having to. You (plural) are having to. New industries will arise, as others pass on. It's going... to... be... okay." - No. Asbestos, environmental warming, air pollution, the collapse of the fish population... all NOT okay. ALL the result of supposed advancement. ALL avoidable. - "'There are numerous tech advances that society has ultimately deemed taboo'.... Like what?" Chemical and biological warfare, the Concord, Asbestos, and a myriad of other deadly little killers that are presently leaching into our drinking water. - "That I don't see us not being forced -- or better yet, encouraged -- to figure it out. It's crazy, people adapt." BUT you are missing the key irony here. It is a disruptive disintermediation tool. It is completely ridiculous to think a system will arise out of a shredder. - "I mean, look at Strumpette: Its MySpace page has more friends than mine!" You are giving me credit for popularity and I am arguing against the value of mere popularity.
"Excuse me numbers don't lie; and you're opinion about the numbers don't matter. There's not a responsible economist on the planet that would not agree that the Web killed the music business."
The music business is not dead. The current model of hoping that consumers by CDs, an antiquated and inconvenient technology, is suffering, yes. But businesspeople will figure out how to make money off downloads and other Web-based innovations. We're already seeing sales of downloads increasing (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007/06/25/daily7.html?t=printable). Meanwhile, labels are bringing back the superior format, vinyl, and cleverly adding MP3 download coupons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon_techbuzz_0625jun25,0,692355.column). Last, new types of music businesses such as Last.fm and MySpace.com (which started as a band site) are being snapped up by forward-thinking entertainment companies. And those companies may not endure either, but where is it written that companies are supposed to survive thousands of years?!? But music isn't the point; it's just a bad example. The point is that tools such as the Web don't kill industries. People do, either through a failure to regulate the tool or a reluctance to adapt to innovation. - "'Is Andrew Keen in a band?!'" "What the fuck are you talking about?" No need to get nasty. The point is that he -- a very sharp man, no doubt -- is using examples from industries in which he's neither a participant nor specialist to prove his point that Web 2.0 (or whatever) is going to discourage great art from reaching humanity. It's simply not happening. People who are huge consumers of music find right now the best time ever to be a music lover. The ability for entities to make money off music will catch up to that appetite. If not, those entities will find something else to do. It will be okay. - "No. Asbestos, environmental warming, air pollution, the collapse of the fish population... all NOT okay. ALL the result of supposed advancement. ALL avoidable." MP3s are not asbestos. Spending minutes on Wikipedia instead of fruitlessly searching World Book encyclopedias about an esoteric subject is not akin to global warming. Those poisons are harmful to humans if used inappropriately, but we're not going to stop technological advancement. If we haven't been able to prevent scientists and engineers from experimenting and tinkering for thousands of years, it's not going to stop now. All we can do is give people incentive to act responsibly with those tools. That's the responsibility of governments, companies, peer groups, etc. - "BUT you are missing the key irony here. It is a disruptive disintermediation tool. It is completely ridiculous to think a system will arise out of a shredder." It only looks like chaos right now, because there is disruption. Do we still hear people crying over the scribes who lost their jobs to the printing presses? Piano players feared the player piano. The companies who manufactured player pianos criticized radio. Radio worried about TV. Smart, ambitious people will make sense of it all. Just be patient. I don't believe in turning the reigns over to the "Wisdom of the Crowds." And I don't believe in bowing down to so-called, third-party experts. I believe in both keeping one another in check. There will be something resembling a "music industry" and there will be independent musicians. There will be bloggers and there will be journalists. There will traditional media relations specialists doing good work for their clients right alongside online PR specialists (or whatever they're called). Some of what will come out of either side will be junk. Some of it won't. It just seems, given the history of innovation and how man has always adapted, to claim anything different is to either be acting out of fear or with an ulterior motive. If it weren't for Web 2.0, I would never have discovered all the brilliant people who contribute to Strumpette... ... in the comments sections. ;-) But, seriously, you know I have the utmost respect for your mind, Amanda. I just don't agree that there is anything inherently bad with the intersection of PR/communications/networking and the Web 2.0 technologies. There's just something inherently bad in the people we know who are posturing and misusing the technologies. Let's continue to call them out -- and not the tools.
- "But businesspeople will figure out how to make money off downloads and other Web-based innovations."
NO, THEY WON'T!! THAT'S THE POINT. YOU CANNOT BUILD A SYSTEM BASED ON A TOOL THAT IS UBIQUITOUS AND ULTIMATELY ANTI-PROPERTY! - "The point is that [Kenn] -- a very sharp man, no doubt -- is using examples from industries in which he's neither a participant nor specialist to prove his point that Web 2.0 (or whatever) is going to discourage great art from reaching humanity. It's simply not happening. People who are huge consumers of music find right now the best time ever to be a music lover." NO. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU DON'T NEED TO PLAY VIOLIN TO BE AN EXPERT IN CLASSICAL MUSIC. Also, the institution today cannot afford the bands of the past. Certainly, there are exceptions but today we are inundated with crap! And more crap is NOT okay. Arrrgh. - "If we haven't been able to prevent scientists and engineers from experimenting and tinkering for thousands of years, it's not going to stop now. All we can do is give people incentive to act responsibly with those tools. That's the responsibility of governments, companies, peer groups, etc." Exactly. No one is expecting scientists to stop inventing. We are just going to prevent knuckleheads from driving heavy machinery. Just like the government stepped in with online gambling, just like you're seeing governments step in and control the Net now globally. - "Do we still hear people crying over the scribes who lost their jobs to the printing presses? Piano players feared the player piano. The companies who manufactured player pianos criticized radio. Radio worried about TV. Smart, ambitious people will make sense of it all. Just be patient." NO. I AM NOT GOING TO BE PATIENT ANY LONGER WITH SWILL AND SUPERSTITION. THE PROMISE IS A LIE! - "It just seems, given the history of innovation and how man has always adapted, to claim anything different is to either be acting out of fear or with an ulterior motive." NO. This is like no other revolution in history. Take another look at Michael Wesch's "The Machine is Us/ing Us". In it he tells the story of Web 2.0 very well. And according to Wesch, most (you plural) seem to have missed its point. The gravity of the film is in the last 30 seconds, i.e. "We'll need to rethink a few things." Wesch said, “All human relationships are mediated by communication. If we change the way we communicate, we change human relationships, and since society is ultimately based on human relationships, those seemingly minor differences can have a profound effect on society, especially if they become dominant or very popular modes of communication.” Bottom line: for PR 2.0 to be even feasible... we need to rethink: "copyright, ownership, identity, ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric, governance, privacy, commerce, love, family... ourselves." Hello Jeff! We can't; and we won't. All this superstition is the stuff of fad and bubble. Add Comment
|
Unless your BF's got PPV, ten buck says you missed this. It got very little coverage. The Web Fight of the Decade happened about a week ago. David Weinberger (author of “