aggregation = assimilation
This press release refers to a consumer survey that claims “95% of respondents agree they would like to be more in-the-know about businesses in their local community.”
It also claims that “76% of people in Sydney currently waste time travelling outside their local area for services such as masseurs and mechanics because they don’t know enough about alternative businesses within their local area.”
Conveniently, local Yelp clone Rayv has gone live (currently in Sydney only) to provide hyperlocal user generated service business reviews. Other Australian review aggregators are Docoloco (Melbourne), RaveAboutIt (Sydney), WOMOW (Melbourne), VouchOrGrouch (Brisbane), Yabble (forthcoming, Melbourne), OurPatch (NSW) and Nook (seemingly already in the deadpool).
I signed up for an account at Rayv and found that it is full of clever features and could be very useful. However, my standard critique of user generated social media aggregators is as evident here as it is in all the others – it takes more than it gives.
Aggregators say “we will add your distinctiveness to our own”. They want to take your unique experiences and creative voice and package them up and resell them to you. Is this what social media consumers want? Will they tolerate it? I don’t think so… I think many people will resist being assimilated aggregated into the collective.
Aggregation entrepreneurs who seek to join the corporate media establishment by replicating its top-down business model are vulnerable to the consequences of online class relations. This is not the have / have not socio-economic divide, but the corporate / anti-corporate digital divide. Some of the digerati are the drivers of the internet economy but many others retain an anarchist and anti-corporate view of the purpose of the internet.
The backlash has already started. Blogger Cabgirl says of Yelp: “I wasted HOURS and HOURS of my LIFE to that site! I will not contribute to any site now for free anymore.”
The content creation community may even start actively undermining the aggregators. Cabgirl suggests that she may “post more bad reviews on the restaurants I can’t stand just to get the owners more pissed off at [Yelp] so they will never advertise with [Yelp].”
In another example of online community revenge, computer game enthusiasts wrote critical reviews on Amazon of a new book by an author who criticised their favourite game on TV. In the past, those privileged with a voice in the mainstream media had all the power and no accountability because the audience was unable to respond. There was no two-way conversation.
Now, if the traditional media and those it supports insult consumers, they will have to learn to live with the consequences. The audience has built its own media and will respond with extreme prejudice. Traditional media is finally getting what it deserves. Aggregators will have to be very careful to avoid the same fate.
Similar or related posts
|
|
|
|
Other posts you may find relevant and interesting
- the power of conversation, 4 May 2008
- customers are the social media experts, 21 May 2008
- the value of user generated content, 17 May 2008
- while the suits are on their knees, kick them in the face, 26 April 2009
- What’s hot in Australian web 2.0, 1 July 2008
October 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Why do you assume that all these sites are aggregators? Yabble aims to create a fun place for people to talk about places within their local community – not to aggregate reviews from existing bloggers. It’s great that you have a blog but I think most people just want to have a quick rant or rave about an experience they have had.
And if you want to complain about aggregation – why is there a long list of places this blog is aggregated in your sidebar? Surely the benefits outweigh the negatives for you to promote them like that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Ross, the definition of ‘aggregation’ is far broader than many new media entrepreneurs believe. To aggregate is to gather together. The two main models are to gather content published on multiple platforms elsewhere – see Wotnews (previously Plugger), Outside.In and LocalHero – or build a single platform and gather authors and aggregate their contributions – Yelp, Yabble, DocoLoco, Rayv, etc.
The most prolific contributors to these sites are only 1-10% of the audience yet they create 90% of the content. Sites like Yabble are fighting for the mostly passive 90% of the audience who only produce about 10% of the content. This does not sound like a sound business model to me, but good luck with it. I’d like to be proven wrong!
Content creators like me are best served by being the publisher (the Fitzroyalty blog platform) as well as the author (my posts). I have no problem with my content being aggregated elsewhere, as long as the aggregators acknowledge the source as per the copyright license. I list the aggregators so if people see my content elsewhere they can tell whether it is with my approval or not – and I have been warned of infringements by readers.
I own the means of production and determine the conditions by which my content is distributed. Contributers to review sites like Yabble are alienated from the means of production and are thus more likely to be exploited by aspiring digital overlords.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0