What Would Google Do?

Comments (Archived):

1. Terry Semmel (and people like him) transformed Yahoo in an “old media company”… Terry pocketed a cool quarter of a billion and quit at the right time (in a good old fashioned executive style).Not so sure about the value of “post”-anything… The usage is a bit worn out… we’ve seen a number of those – post-modern, post-history, post-analytical, post-intellectual, etc…

2. Does post-media mean that Jeff Jarvis thinks there won’t be any new information-broadcasting organizations?

   1. I don’t think so, but I am just getting into the book

      1. I don’t have context, but I actually don’t like the term post-media at all. What does that mean? Was he meaning post-mass media? Was he implying Yahoo is still a mass media model vs. Google which is some type of new model? That might make more sense but the term media is way to broad to define by the word post and have it make sense…

3. I want a copy.

   1. Pre-order is linked in the post

4. This 2006 video of Seth Godin speaking at Google says it all about how Google beat Yahoo (and why search-relevant, algorithm driven, actionable, and measurable “post media” ads beat the old mass media interruption style ads).Could having a large ad sales department be a good way to identify web companies that don’t “get it”?

5. Could you explain a bit more why post media is more apt than new media? Are we calling content publishers media companies and those that provide distribution channels something else? Not sure I understand the difference you’re getting at here.

   1. Media means organized and centralized in my mindPost media suggests chaos which is what we are now in

      1. It might mean that in your mind, it might even be an accurate representation, but media is a word with a long established and widely understood definition. Post media can really only legitimately mean “after media” – if we start changing defintions of words to qualify new definitions (in line with our own understanding of them), then we really will end up in chaos. The question remains, how is Google a post-media company?

         1. Are we really saying that in the future there will be no media?

            1. No, it doesn’t mean no media just as post-modernism didn’t mean no architecture. It’s about perspective, one that incorporates new truths about media. The content doesn’t disappear, it’s about how we relate to it at some structural level of change.

            2. Modernism is a philosophy, media is actual stuff so I’m not sure the comparison is a valid one Brooks, but that’s by the by. I do truly hope that Jeff doesn’t (and I’m confident he won’t) stray into the realms of critical theory – I think that’s the last thing we need.

            3. I should have said post-modernist architecture or post-architecture so it didn’t confuse my point.And that is that architecture didn’t go away, it just radically changed because of a new perspective.This isn’t about critical theory.The question “What Would Google Do?” is about a new perspective that, if widely adopted, will radically change media (not do away with it), and that’s a big part of post-media.It’s also “post” because something is truly different about the way it’s organized or the form it takes rather than it being a complete replacement for what came before.

            4. Sorry but I’m with JohnDodds here. Lots of stuff has radically changed media – the Internet changed media but the Internet isn’t post-media. This term must be stopped before it starts. Sigh.

         2. I hope jeff joins this thread and answers this himself