said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:
I think he was talking about the value of any follower, be they his or yours. He acquired a million followers pretty much overnight when involved in a work of charity and he explains he accomplished that because of a unique window of opportunity that Twitter has now slammed shut. One that had only been available to famous people and rich conglomerates in disguise.
Regarding the worth or value… he reasons that most of those people don’t have a clue who he was or who he is… and suggests most people’s followers don’t have a clue who they are, unless they are famous or a megacorporation. I tend to agree with him when he says only about 1% of followers are actually going to be engaged, engaging, and actively involved in doing what it is you wanted them to do. Of course, he goes further and says that most of those 1-percenters are probably not the ones you’d like to be involved at all, lol.
But I think that’s a pretty typical and fair estimate of the response on any direct response “list.” One percent. More is great. Less is a boo hoo. But one percent was always typical for direct mail and other traditional advertising campaigns.
So from his perspective, he sees one-percenters as having very little value in the scheme of CHANGING anything of import in this world. (And criticizes Twitter and newscasters for allowing people to believe that Twitter had any effect on the Arab Spring).
He saw there was a window of opportunity on the internet at one time, but claims in recent years, because of mass buyouts by conglomerates of independent internet shows, that window has closed. Now the majority of what we view on the internet of any import is now owned or controlled by a handful of media corporations.
That’s why he’s saying HIS followers are worth nothing… not money… not as citizen reporters… not as catalysts for change.
He cites only 1% of ALL the articles that Huffington Post produces ever gets viewed at all. Only 1%. Far less views for any of the “local” publications it lures local editors to produce for them, basically for free.
He’s saying it’s a very bad, bad thing when almost all the money being made from the internet has found its way back into the pockets of a few centralized media conglomerates, despite all the activity of “social media” efforts.
I saw that same pack of dogs let loose on our local newspapers, radio and TV stations back in the 1980′s. As a nation, we lost ALL but a tiny handful of our locally owned and controlled news outlets, eventually being spoonfed the manufactured news from a handful of conglomerate sources. In truth, from less than a dozen men.
Mendelson’s just saying… this has now occurred on the internet. And the time for anyone profiting is over. We just don’t all see it that way yet.
Why? We’re too busy with all our social media stuff to notice. At least that’s my take on the crux of what he said. The real Napster story… that it was just Napster’s opportunistic hype that latched on to that 1980′s beginning-of-the-end for “free press” and music and ownership of local media by anyone other than a dozen men… was actually what I thought when watching Napster take credit when the music industry crashed.
I had a friend working for one of those media giants… buying and selling and shutting down all those radio stations and newspapers and magazines during those days. They thought Napster was pretty clever, too… for taking credit… and the fall… for their media mob bosses.
Yes, this interview was waaaay too long… but I thought the subject important. History,.. repeating again. Who’da thought?