On being disintermediated

There’s been a lot of discussion and thinking in the mediasphere lately about the tectonic shift in journalism, marketing, PR, etc., that for the purposes of this post I’ll lump into the broad category of communications. A common thread that unites many of these discussions I’ve been reading and partaking in has to do with the concept of disintermediation.

That’s a big word, disintermediation. An ugly word, too. And as much as I hate to toss big words around, I ask you to bear with me on this one. Disintermediation is the only word I know that fits the circumstance.

In economic jargon, disintermediation refers to the removal of intermediaries in the supply chain for delivering goods and services. Take the travel industry. Once upon a time, when you wanted to go on vacation or take a business trip, you would typically contact a travel agent to book your flight and make your hotel reservations. These days, you log on to Travelocity, Orbitz, Priceline or one of many other services and do all your booking yourself. The travel agency business has been disintermediated. The “middleman” (your local travel agent) is no longer necessary.

The same thing has happened in financial services (think Ditech and LendingTree), entertainment (Netflix, iTunes, Amazon) and many other industries.

But all of these examples pertain to the buying and selling of goods. What about the sharing of information?

Barbarians at the gate

What we think of as traditional media organizations — newspapers, broadcast news, magazines and the like — have been the mediators of information for a long time. They grew accustomed to being the authorities, the sources of information. They were the gatekeepers. It was one-way, top-down communication from hierarchical organizations. Similarly, companies used the same sort of hierarchical structure to advertise their goods and services in one-way communications channels. By the time colleges and universities figured out how to do marketing, promotion and PR, they followed the same path.

These are the “old-school” techniques Karlyn Morissette discusses in a recent post about new-school vs. old-school marketing methods. Karlyn summarizes the differences between the two schools like this:

It’s control vs. engagement

It’s spin vs. authenticity

It’s about textbook marketing vs. what works in the real world.

It’s about treating the audience as the enemy vs. embracing them

It’s sticking your fingers in your ears, singing “lalala” vs. accepting reality

As much as our communications challenges have to do with this struggle between the traditional old-school methods and the new-school approaches, it’s also about understanding and acknowledging the communications sphere as it now exists. We communicators are trying to shoehorn mediated communications into a disintermediated world.

Face it: we, the institutions — the companies, the marketers, the brand managers, the journalists, the editors, the educators — we no longer control the message (if we ever really did). Technology has enabled anyone to create and spread news about our organizations.

The hordes have stormed the gates of our institutions and are running amok, blogging, tweeting, Flickring, vlogging and blabbing about us without our consent.

What it means for news and media relations

Disintermediation, coupled with the democratization of news gathering and reporting and the bad economy, are converging to wreak havoc on the news business. Soon after CNN announced they were cutting their science unit, Jason Gorss posted a thoughtful entry about the demise of science journalism. In his piece, he pondered its impact on media relations for a university like the one where he works (which is similar to the one where I work, so you can see why I’m interested).

Summarizing comments he’s heard from fellow media relations folks, Jason sees two issues bubble to the surface:

  1. “As solid science reporting becomes less available to the public, we PIOs have an even greater responsibility to produce our own accurate, spin-free coverage of research at our institutions,” and
  2. “All of us — PIOs and journalists alike — need to take advantage of new media tools to develop creative ways of engaging the public, not simply bombarding them with scientific information.”

But there’s a third point many PIOs and journalists overlook, Jason says. He points to Jeff Jarvis‘s post A complete ecology of news to make the point. “He [Jarvis] tends to focus on bloggers, citizen journalists, and the like, but I think he raises some points that should be of particular interest to PIOs at scientific institutions. We have a unique relationship with sources–primarily faculty members–and it would behoove us to keep thinking about how we can best get their expert commentary in front of the people who want (and need) it.”

Much of the discussion that informed Jason’s post (and this one) stems from a listserv called “PIOnet,” which was created by Roger Johnson, founder of Newswise. Discussions there have led to Roger expanding the party to another venue — a LinkedIn group called PRwise — which is starting to catch on. Meanwhile, Roger continues to maintain the PIOnet listserv, and probably will for some time, since it includes plenty of media relations people who aren’t comfortable wading out into social networks (even one as narrowly focused as this LinkedIn group). And as we all know by now, no new forum ever replaces an old one — the best of them do enrich the experience for users, however.

We’ll see how it goes.

Finally, there’s the discussion I’ve been monitoring on a listserv made up of graduates of the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Many of the participants are journalists who are looking for ways to hone their skills for the new media world. A recent post took the group to task for focusing on the technology rather than the core issues:

The technical expertise needed to publish on the web, even to create interactive features, is falling rapidly. Just think about what Soundslides did for the production of simple slideshows that use to require knowledge of Flash. More and more, online journalism is going to reflect a plug-and-play world which won’t require a technical class to accomplish day-to-day production. Another example: Today with little programing ability, one can create (for FREE!) a robust content management system in Drupal (and other platforms), which rivals what many of publishers have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on.

You’re not going to learn to think critically and creatively about the future of the industry, multimedia publishing, new business models, digital culture, etc., by taking a computer class (ore almost any other skills class). Theory-based classes are more important than ever to give students analytical and critical thinking skills, but that’s exactly what is being cut from journalism curriculum to teach more skills that are going to be outdated within a couple of years of graduating. But if we give students — and mid-career professionals —- the intellectual skills to be innovative in their approach to the questions facing journalism, they’ll be well positioned for years to come.

Obviously, though, it’s much easier to retool our skill set than our intellectual approach, which is exactly why we’re in a crisis from which journalism may not fully recover.

Now, to tie these threads together:

What does disintermediation mean for those of us who work with media, and as intermediaries, delivering marketing messages and so forth?

I see our role as moving to two-way communication. We will become facilitators of discussion and conversation as much as we are communicators. We will become listeners, hosts and moderators of discussion — online and elsewhere — as much as the talkers (or shouters) and sales force.

That’s something we’ve been trying to do with our blogs at S&T. With spacebook, the blog we created as a forum for our alumna-astronaut Sandra Magnus to use to talk with the people of earth, we are facilitating a conversation. Yes, we initiated it, but it is more than a one-way announcement or shoutfest. It is a forum and a virtual third place where people of all ages are coming to learn about space and stay up-to-date on her life on the International Space Station.

That’s just one example of how we are trying to adapt to this disintermediated world. I know that many other schools are doing many other worthwhile things. It’s up to us to help those who are not yet walking this path to show them the way.

Now I’m sounding like a preacher, which means it’s time to stop.

Friday Five: higher ed odds and sods

Important stuff about Twitter, LinkedIn, Unigo, rankings and geeks

While I slack, other higher ed bloggers and news outlets have been cranking out some good stuff. Here are five recent posts you should check out:

  1. 10 reasons to monitor Twitter. Fellow Twitter junkie Brad J. Ward‘s list is solid. And he offers examples, straight from the tweeters.
  2. A case study on setting up a LinkedIn alumni group. Last spring I posted about Caltech’s use of LinkedIn to connect with alumni. Kyle James picked up and ran with the idea. Here, he details how Wofford College set up their own LinkedIn group.
  3. Creating the college anti-rankings. Inside Higher Ed reports on the Education Conservancy‘s creation of College Speaks, “an explicitly anti-rankings system for the college search.” A prototype was presented Thursday at the National Association for College Admissions Counseling Conference in Seattle. (The Education Conservancy is best known for campaigning against the “reputational” surveys used by U.S. News & World Report for its rankings.)
  4. Sam Jackson extols the virtues of Unigo. Unigo is the latest player in the college search game but it leverages the power of social networking by involving students. It launched last week with 225 colleges and universities and 30,000-plus reviews. Jackson was involved in its creation so he has an insider’s perspective.
  5. MIT: We’re not all geeks. Really. This MIThBusters video protesting the MIT nerd stereotype may have had the opposite effect. According to the Chronicle’s Wired Campus blog, “the video frustrated one of MIT’s most-famous geeks, Henry Jenkins, a co-director of MIT’s Comparative Media Studies Program.” He ranted on his blog: “Most of the folks they depict still come across looking like geeks, not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

#CASECMT: social networking for alumni groups

The original post contained some incorrect information about Caltech’s alumni base. This updated post reflects the correct numbers. The offending blogger has been duly reprimanded.

Once again I’ve fallen behind on my plans to summarize last week’s CASE Conference on Communications, Marketing and Technology. But you know how it is, once you get back to the office and get sucked in. So it goes.

Anyway…

Elizabeth Allen of the Caltech Alumni Association (and recent guest blogger in this space) put together a nice presentation on how alumni groups can use social networks to connect with alumni. She focused on three social networks Caltech Alumni Association is using– LinkedIn, Facebook and the photo- and video-sharing network Flickr. I was most interested in the LinkedIn angle, since that’s the network many people tap for connecting professionally.

Caltech Alumni started the LinkedIn group in 2005 without a lot of fanfare. According to Liz, Caltech sent two email newsletters to some 20,000 13,000 alumni with known email addresses, and also worked with LinkedIn to send a note to LinkedIn members who indicated they were Caltech alumni. (There’s also a link to and description of the LinkedIn group from the alumni association website.) From those low-cost efforts, Caltech Alumni has a LinkedIn group of 2,017, or 10 15.5 percent of the emailable alumni. (Update: Caltech has about 20,000 alumni in total, not 20,000 emailable, as I originally stated in this post. Caltech has email for about 13,000 of those alumni. Thanks, Liz, for setting the record straight.)

Why does this work for Caltech? In one sense, it makes the association more relevant, because through LinkedIn the association is facilitating global connections. Alumni from across the globe are part of the Caltech organization even if they live in regions where no alumni chapter exist. Also, using LinkedIn leverages that site’s mission of helping people build business and employment networks — something that’s important for a technological university like Caltech. (This is a model that could work for our campus, since many of our graduates also are in the science and engineering fields.)

Caltech also uses Facebook (with an alumni group and an alumni page, where Liz can send RSS feeds of events) and Flickr for sharing photos of events, etc. Caltech made a conscious decision to use third-party social networks instead of creating a separate, exclusive network hosted by the alumni association. The reasons: third-party validation (especially from LinkedIn, I would assume), and most alumni who are into social networks are already online in those venues, so why make them create yet another password and log in yet another time?

If anyone has questions about Caltech’s use of social networking, I’m sure Liz would be happy to respond. You may email her at elizabeth AT alumni.caltech.edu.