There is a myth that is plaguing the media — that myth is followers.
Why are followers a myth? I’m glad I asked! 😉
It’s a “Catch 22” thing. If you need followers in order to get followers, then it will never happen that way. What actually happens is that someone gets promoted (by paying money, for example) and then after thousands of suckers take the bait, then the quasi-leader has thereby “built” a following — that’s the way they do it.
In a world of potentially billions and billions of potential leaders, the task of finding the right leader still remains a daunting puzzle. On the other side, we find another myth .. namely “if you build it, they will come”. The more appropriate saying should be something more like “if you build it and make a lot of noise, thereby disrupting the entire town and distracting a lot of people from what they were just busy with, then (maybe — if you’re lucky and the disrupted and distracted folks aren’t angry with you for bothering them) they will pay attention.
Let me give you an example. In America, there were once a couple of pioneers named Lewis and Clarke. These trailblazers created trails by telling people they were going to go where “no man has gone before” (at least no man of European descent). [1] Such “wild and crazy” adventures are often followed by many thrill-seekers, the kind who are likely to turn on the TV-set to see if some daredevil celebrity will succeed or fail, if a space-ship will successfully land on the moon or Mars, and so on (and they are also quite likely to take pictures, one of which will probably get sold to the highest bidder and land on the front-page news) — it’s simply sensational.
Last century, Vannevar Bush, the visionary who basically envisioned what would eventually become the Internet, proposed an idea he referred to as “trailbuilding”, whereby trailbuilders would create links between ideas, such that later followers could use such guideposts to find their way through the maze of data (and thereby perhaps discover new facts). [2]
I believe that over the past several decades, the so-called “media-landscape” is experiencing a revolution … from trailblazing to trailbuilding. As an increasing number of trailbuilders continue to build a sort of ideological infrastructure ordinary people are beginning to realize that they are becoming more and more independent from trailblazing leaders “brought to you by” the old-fashioned industrial propaganda machinery. Increasingly, ordinary people can find their own ways through the maze of everyday life via the guideposts that have been created by networked communities of trailbuilders.
Let me try to tie up some loose ends from last week’s post by coming to a preliminary conclusion here. I feel the difference between trailblazing and trailbuilding is not hard and fast, either this or that, or any such binary contrast. It seems to be a gradual and nonetheless ongoing shift in our approach to information. Last week I mentioned I wanted to provide a contrast between American and German communities. I noted that in America there seem to be a large number of community-based communications about gender (e.g. the “What is a Woman?” documentary I alluded to). In contrast, in Germany I notice a wide array of leaders (whether among religious organizations, or among political organizations, or whatever) publishing information about topics such as “What is a family?” Both of these approaches are fascinating, yet I also wish to draw attention to the fact that both approaches also leave trails behind — even though one is more a matter of trailbuilding network activity, while the other is more a matter of traditional leadership trailblazing. Although I see this contrast clearly, at the same time I acknowledge that I want to be able to see it — in other words: maybe what I think I see clearly is simply a vision my brain is too easily convinced of by “wishful thinking”.
Another thing I think I see quite clearly is that since we can choose from a wide variety of trails, there is no guarantee that any one trail will certainly succeed in delivering us to our expected conclusion. The situation may indeed be even worse than mere uncertainty. If different communities form different groups and thereby build different (and perhaps even opposing) competitive camps, then it might be quite plausible that one camp might create bogus paths to nowhere in order to lead the so-called competition to failure. Therefore, as time goes on it will become increasingly important to be very wary about the paths we choose to go down. As our own success will increasingly become a matter of wisely chosen path-dependency, we need to focus evermore on straightforward paths that lead to our desired destinations certainly, avoid roundabout joy-rides and arrive “on time” reliably rather than to follow foolish “get there quick” plans (regardless of how “cheap” or “easy” they seem to be).
At this point, it also seems obvious to me that the so-called leading brand name media companies are offering “bait and switch” schemes like there’s no tomorrow. In contrast, rational media are currently building out reliable paths to here, there and everywhere like there is truly tomorrow. [3]
Socio Business blog 
1 comment