On May 14, O’Dwyers PR carried a column I wrote about the battle over publishing excerpts from David Kirkpatrick’s new book, “The Facebook Effect.” It struck me then as it does now that the problem had little to do with copyright and everything to do language.

The full text is below:

WAR OF WORDS SHOWS PRINT AND WEB DON’T SPEAK SAME LANGUAGE

By John Berard

The war of words – and potentially lawyers – between TechCrunch and Fortune is more than evidence that the web and print worlds don’t speak the same language; it is proof that they may not for a long time.

This will be costly to them and a disservice to their readers.

At issue were excerpts — either to print or on which to draw inspiration — from a new book about Facebook by long-time Fortune editor David Kirkpatrick. The public relations folks at the magazine made the offer to one of the leading web venues for technology news and insight, TechCrunch. That much is clear. That much may be all that is clear.

Fortune says “And if you don’t mind, once you’ve read the excerpts, please let me know if you choose not to post on one and not the other or both, which of course we would love.” TechCrunch hears, “Post the excerpt, please.”

From such tiny acorns can grow some mighty, hard as oak disagreements. But more than just being lost in translation, the disconnect is a public disservice. Fortune and TechCrunch are both trusted sources of information who need to get it together for the rest of us.

What makes the timing on this fight ironic is that it comes at a time when the web is working hard to create a fresh market for magazine and newspaper content.

As James Fallows notes in his cover story in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly, “How to Save the News,” Google “now considers journalism’s survival crucial to its own prospects.”

And the iPad is being viewed as a way to rejuvenate the subscription business model savaged by the “information wants to be free” Internet. According to New York Magazine, “iWired, GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Glamour will be the first Condé Nast magazines to have versions created specifically for the new Apple iPad.”

Both Fortune and TechCrunch seems to want to play a role in what comes next. Otherwise the magazine wouldn’t have offered and the web site would not have accepted. Each was committed to helping the author build value for his work and earn the gratitude of their readers by alerting them to the book’s arrival.

Each valued timeliness, relevance and making sure the guy who created the content got paid. With that much in common, how the heck did they get into a row? With that much in common, they can’t stay mad.

I am betting that the new working relationship between the world wide web and the universe of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” will prove valuable, unless it is killed by expectations set to high, standards set too low or a language barrier that cannot be overcome.

As publishers like Condé Nast fully embrace the rich-media, interactive and real-time nature of the Web and mobile devices they will be forced to learn the lingo. And as web publishers come to see the value of trusted content brands, they will work to partner.

That was the good intention of the deal Fortune and TechCrunch thought they had struck. The only question now is whether those good intentions are merely a paving stone on the way to, well, you know, or are they an early sign of the next big thing?

I am betting on the next big think but I do not underestimate how difficult it is to learn a new language.

Share

Context reared its potent head in the New York Times on the subject of Google.  Here is the bit:

“Google’s high-profile mistakes hurt because they convey the impression that Google’s behavior is increasingly inconsistent with its ‘Don’t be evil’ mantra.”

And again on the matter of electoral politics.  Here is that bit about the primary defeat of former Republican, now Democrat Arlen Specter:

“’The legacy of political switches is that you can’t do it,’ said Chris Mottola, a Republican consultant who ran Mr. Specter’s media campaign.”

The lesson keeps getting taught, but it too often goes over the heads of those who could most benefit.  “Who” you are is the most important asset a company or a politician has on which to make the public case for a sale or a vote.  Not only does the answer need to resonate (by filling a need or aligning with beliefs), but needs to be consistently portrayed.

Too often a change in course comes across as cynical, as when “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here” is uttered by Inspector Renault in Rick’s casino room.

This does not mean no change is possible.  Selling a unit once acquired, authoring a bill that flies in the face of a once sacrosanct policy, a price rise at a time of economic uncertainty, any seeming inconsistency, even “I voted for it before I voted against it” can be seen as principled if it helps extend the story of a strong and valuable “Who.”

Make change a story about growth and the market — whether consumers or voters — will listen.  That is the first step toward leadership.

Share

It seems that Facebook may or may not have hired former Bush Administration Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris to help the company deal with impending regulatory changes.  The truth is, it matters very little.

In fact, the noise about Muris’ joining Facebook and his resume is misdirection. So, too, is the point — assumed but quite logical — that his hiring is all about brokering a deal with the FTC.

A sharper point is the uneasy state of Facebook’s relationship with its users. The catalog of actions that have brought the company to this “point” are well-known. What ought to come next, though, is more than hiring a “fixer” or cutting a deal with regulators. Until Facebook makes privacy an understood and essential aspect of customer service, it will look like any other self-interested company seeking to protect a market, not the rising tide it fancies itself, lifing all boats.

Privacy is not a standard (set by law or regulation) that needs to be met.  Instead, it is a negotiation between customers and the companies with whom they do business.  Just like return policies and direct marketing and affinity clubs, privacy must be formed to support the relationship; clear in each moment, but flexible to respond to changed circumstances.

Facebook is an essential part of its users’ days.  Mr. Muris’ job status makes little difference as to whether 400 million users become 4 billion or 4 million.  That is up to Facebook.

Share

When the Securities and Exchange Commission leveled its complaint against Goldman Sachs for manipulating the financial markets, it was quickly clear that while the legal and political consequences of the case against Goldman Sachs drew most of the public’s attention, but it was the cultural fallout that would be the more meaningful legacy of the case.

I had the chance to make the point for Forbes. Here is some of it:

“The fuzzy link between a real asset like a home mortgage and a synthetic collateralized debt obligation is hard to grasp for people focused on Roth IRAs and pretax health care expense accounts. By ignoring the need most of us have to see how investments are linked to tangible assets, Wall Street generally, and Goldman Sachs specifically, have given us ample reason to believe the truth of the charges.

This lack of trust will be the bigger problem for the investment community, whatever the short-term legal and regulatory outcomes. This is the cultural fallout, full-blown now but rooted in a pattern of Wall Street behavior that has long defied common sense.

We are all somewhat culpable because as long as we saw our real estate, 401(k) and mutual funds increase in value, we were willing to believe, as the saying goes, ‘it’s all good.’ No more. As a result, what Goldman Sachs has to say won’t be heard until trust is rebuilt.”

The rest is here.

Share