via Internet Archive—
When I started out pitching articles for print publication in the 1980s, there were commonly at least three contending types serving any given demographic.
The clear leader. The second on its heals. Then some periodical running clean-up. My first run was always at the top book. Readership didn’t anoint this position easily, editors guarded the brand that kept ’em there jealously. But the payoff was a peerless credential. Someone reads you there, and they know you’ve been vetted, edited, and confirmed ten-ways-to-Tuesday.
Twenty-some years later now, I still prefer hardcopy periodicals to electronic format for my most important communications. The former is in trouble of course; many going dorsal-fin down, others transitioning to online. I guess they couldn’t leverage their differential advantage of credibility — if, in fact, they even realized they held that key at all. Me-too managers and committed bean-counters seldom look for such things.
Be that as it may, now that those who’ve fled to the Internet are here, translating the trust of ink-on-paper is their challenge. Cut-and-pasters chip away at intellectual property protection. Expectations of “dialogue” portend message re-direction concerns (admittedly salted on occasion with nuggets of serendipitous good). Publishers long for the days when a part-time ombudsman fielded complaints and letters to the editor were handled space-permitting. A “get it posted,” if not “get it first” mentality has largely replaced “get it right” here. Material and mailing cost savings are eaten up by increased speed and quality control demands.
Still, it’s my contention that true thought-leaders will emerge here, too. They may not be print veterans. But they will have distinguished themselves by clarity of purpose, consistency of output, and reliable output schedules. Oh, yeah: And largely bullet-proof credibility (coupled with a rapid-response system for admitting and correcting the inevitable faux pas or outright screw-up).
In a word, it’s still “branding” as we in marketing have always known it.
It simply remains to be seen who will emerge as the web equivalent of our favorite obsoleting media. But the criteria by which that position will be objectively understood is not in doubt.