This tendency will only increase as we hurtle towards a real-time web. But will there be a place for meaningful communication?

The Flutter April Fools joke parodied our growing obsession with instantaneous information exposing the growing misconception that a means of communication also also make it meaningful. But the important distinction, as Zeus Jones points out, is that while real time information loses value over time, timeless pieces grow in value.

When you consider brands rely on an emotional connection with their customers to motivate their behavior, this confusion becomes costly. Of course, a meaningful connection isn’t always timeless, but the same limitations apply. A brand hoping to generate trust, interest or loyalty in a 140 characters is about as misguided and ineffective as a guy using his best one-liner in a bar. If a brand does use social media, it must also play an overarching role as “aggregator and curator”, as Joseph Jaffe states, “to provide a place where consumers can see the conversations pulled together, engage with the brand, hear the story in the brand’s voice”.

Communication should not be regarded as an end in itself. It exists to create a connection that lets us recognize ourselves in others. If our daily communication is reduced to a teeming sea of quips, asides and blunt reductions, we simply enlist ourselves in the service of data tracking. As if our lives were some enormous marketing focus group and our communication ticked a box.

When communication is reduced to a shooting gallery, the saddest casualty is the dialogue that adds meaning to our lives. As both marketers and consumers, we would be foolish to let this happen.

This tendency will only increase as we hurtle towards a real-time web. But will there be a place for meaningful communication?

The Flutter April Fools joke parodied our growing obsession with instantaneous information exposing the growing misconception that a means of communication also also make it meaningful. But the important distinction, as Zeus Jones points out, is that while real time information loses value over time, timeless pieces grow in value.

When you consider brands rely on an emotional connection with their customers to motivate their behavior, this confusion becomes costly. Of course, a meaningful connection isn’t always timeless, but the same limitations apply. A brand hoping to generate trust, interest or loyalty in a 140 characters is about as misguided and ineffective as a guy using his best one-liner in a bar. If a brand does use social media, it must also play an overarching role as “aggregator and curator”, as Joseph Jaffe states, “to provide a place where consumers can see the conversations pulled together, engage with the brand, hear the story in the brand’s voice”.

Communication should not be regarded as an end in itself. It exists to create a connection that lets us recognize ourselves in others. If our daily communication is reduced to a teeming sea of quips, asides and blunt reductions, we simply enlist ourselves in the service of data tracking. As if our lives were some enormous marketing focus group and our communication ticked a box.

When communication is reduced to a shooting gallery, the saddest casualty is the dialogue that adds meaning to our lives. As both marketers and consumers, we would be foolish to let this happen.

I think you’re absolutely right, real-time information is an AND not an OR. The net is, as you point out, an overall gain. I love that kind of thinking and I do appreciate your (and all commentary). A big part of putting this stuff out there is so that other people will help you shape it. Thanks for the “personal note” it’s nice to know you like it but keep the alternative thinking coming.

I like to think that we’re diversifying our portfolio of types of information. before the enabling information and communication technologies emerged, we could only produce timeless information (because we didn’t have the ICTs for real-time information). right now we’re experiencing an explosion of possibilities for real-time information/communication; hence FriendFeed, and hence the fear that timeless information is being whereas before, we could produce only more timeless information is being compromised. but ultimately, I feel, emerging ICTs are enabling us to elaborate more types of information (in this case, vis-a-vis time). there is a time (haha) for timeless vs. timely information – just think about their different functions in our information ecology…

still, can information that’s timely also be timeless? or are these two mutually exclusive categories of information?

on a more personal note, I notice that I usually leave comments only when I’m critiquing something, suggesting an alternative way to see. that’s not to say that I don’t appreciate your blog; I just usually don’t feel the need to leave a comment merely saying “this is awesome!” that said, this is awesome! I definitely enjoy reading your blog.

Could those lines be re-labelled as: ‘real-time data’ and ‘timeless data’, and the point at which they cross ‘information now’?

When data is put in context (a function of timeliness and relevance to a running process) it informs, it becomes usable information.

Old data or seemingly irrelevant data can always have value later in the form of a revisionist past – and, since the web can dredge up old data at the same speed as the new – do we just need to be mindful of the current context, rather than the current time?

“I’ll meet you when our contexts align.”