The notion that everything should be handed out for free, with no strings, usually falls apart when the person toiling away for free realizes they should be getting something for their efforts. Capitalism? Sure. Smart Noggin' Usage? Clearly.
At some point after toiling away for free, building up his social community and praising the man, the guy behind Barack Obama's MySpace page suddenly realized he should be rewarded. So Joe Anthony did what any person in charge would do. He changed the password and asked for some dinero. Show me the Greenbacks!
Anthony's efforts to collect roughly 30 cents per email address resulted in his banishment from the Obama page by MySpace managers who decided Obama should own his own name and page. Yeah, Anthony got to take his 160,000 friends and go home, but without the Obama wow they are of no value. The Democratic candidate got control of the page and managed to snake away 20,000 names without paying a dime. (By the way, a good email address connected to a dedicated supporter/contributor usually goes for $1. Just the going rate per address, so let's not be offering any discounts next time Mr. Anthony, shall we?)
Now certainly, this started out as a volunteer effort, but it demonstrates the problem with giving away everything for free. Doing something because it's cool or new or the in-thing tends to loose its appeal after the newness wears off and becomes hard work. That's why sane individuals seek compensation for their ideas, creativity, ingenuity, and innovations. Working for fun just doesn't seem that rewarding when you're sitting outside looking in wondering how you too can have the good life. Your ego can only take so much stroking before the hunger pains start to starve for attention.
As for Anthony, he doesn't plan to vote for Obama anymore. He's taking his friends and going home. And I'm guessing he'll work out a better financial arrangement with the next candidate he chooses to work for.
Last updated by at .
Spread the Word - Like and/or share this page, your friends will also love it and thanks for it.
Yep… this is the whole megillah. As you might be aware, I am a huge fan of Andrew Keen’s new book, “Cult of the Amateur.” I recommend it highly.
That said however, although a good splash in the face, when the Web 2.0 “movement” is reduced to a debate of culture, it’s ultimately irresolvable. I prefer Mozart; some geeks don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know it, let alone discern its value. I think it’s self evident; for some geeks born on another planet, it’s not.
BUT… what you touch on here Michael is what it will all boil down to. Is the Open Source system a viable economic model or a hole in the boat? So far, it’s proven rather radically to be a hole in the boat.
- Amanda
To recognize the value in one’s efforts beforehand is key. To negotiate a deal with a campaign that could most likely do it better is another story.
But Rick – the state of PR”s reputation is such that the public at large has unreasonable expectations. It’s so bad now that even a layman will praise the amateur’s effort for being “authentic,” even if there are campaigns that can do it better.
“Slick” used to mean “clever, targeted, and sleek: minimum effort for maximum effect.” Now, ‘slick’ means ‘duplicitous, snake-oil, and spin.’
Obama’s team was playing with fire on this one. There’s too much of a risk to hire a blogger to run this sort of thing – ask John Edwards. It’s also nice to have the plausible deniability to hide behind should this amateur muck something else. But under the present culture of “authenticity worship,” if there’s even a whiff of someone knowledgeable gaming the system then the game is over.
The general public gets away with this sort of dichotomy all the time. It’s a classic example of wanting the apron in the kitchen and the crotchless teddy in the bedroom. Just as long as you aren’t paying for it…
Ike, I think there will be more gunho volunteers seeking an “opportunity” to show how they can “make it real” and put together another social media blog for a candidate or business because they can’t wait to show off their “skills.”
When I was starting out in PR, I would give away the farm because someone told me that I needed to have a portfolio and examples of my work. Usually, this would lead to hours of hard work, only to have the client turn it all over to a “professional” agency because they proved how they were more experienced, better suited to the task, had the connections, or something better than what I could offer.
Sure I was a recent journalist-turned-PR practitioner, but I still had some experience in planning, strategy and communication. The problem with much of the amateur’s efforts is they are motivated more by the wow factor than they are by the science behind communication. And the result is a convoluted mix of catch-up, back-peddling, and eventually, the cleanup professional is brought in to fix it.
PR practitioners must find a way to demonstrate credibility and professionalism; a step above the amateurs who mean well, but don’t have all the skills we’ve honed over years of education and experience. I know we are skilled, but I’m not sure the profession has found the way to demonstrate it.
Michael – the same is true for broadcast television.
Either one of us could walk in the door and immediately improve a newsroom. Almost overnight. We have the benefit of experience as an insider, as well as experience as a “common user.”
Why did we get out? Because the system does not reward the “extra effort” often enough. Why pay Mike or Ike the moderate bucks, when you can get kids out of school for Cheap as Free? With the proliferation of video technology into competing outlets and living rooms, Joe Average just doesn’t see enough of a difference to warrant the extra financial drain you and I would place on the system.
I fear that Joe Average is beginning to look at PR (and the sausage we make) the same way he looks at teevee talking-heads. It’s all empty carbs anyway, so why bother asking for better.
If you can’t brand yourself by competing in the news arena, then you branch off and do faux opinions and analysis. At least that’s what the cable nets are doing, and dragging the big nets and the local affiliates down with the lowered expectations.
Or maybe it’s just the bruises talking. Anybody got an aspirin?
Joe Anthony obviously did not feel he was getting enough ROI for his time and efforts on the Obama MySpace page. And everybody needs return on their investment, whether it is in the form of ego stroking, validation or positive feedback on a job well-done; or in the form of remuneration, whether just to pay the rent or to feel that one is ‘comfortable’ financially. Everybody has their own personal level of ROI that they need.
A troubling aspect of open source and social media, as put forth frequently by some of the most avid theorists and purists, is a kind of millenialist vision of technology that they erect. The old socialist maxim of “from each according to their means, to each according to their needs” was, of course, corrupted by practitioners — all of society gave, gave and gave … but the party faithful and power elite always seemed to take more than their share.
What even the most visionary in systems like socialism, and with open source and social media technologies, is that while the purists will always demand “equality” and expect everyone to give until it hurts, there is always somebody gaming the system, somebody who benefits more than others. Some, lots more than others.
To me, it’s very plausible that Joe Anthony is just one of those visionaries who got disillusioned, realized that compared to the benefits others were reading, the return (however he defined that) was not commensurate with the level of his investment of time and resources. He decided it was time to demand compensation that matched his level of investment — and the system punished him. Within the ethic and established “cool” of social media, he’s now a pariah, an outcast. He broke the code, dared to challenge some of the suppositions and now he’s been banished.