As you may have seen, one of the latest big stories in the media world was that Conde Nast is shutting down Gourmet magazine (and others) after more than 50 years (based on recommendations by McKinsey, I might add).

As an avid observer of all things business model, as well as alternative dynamics to the status quo in general, and a fat guy, this fascinates me. On the face of it, this has absolutely nothing to do with ESG or the IT analyst world, but read the excerpt below from a NY Times op-ed piece on the demise of Gourmet. It sure seems this is relevant to our business along with many others.

“Holidays are getting close – anyone got a good broccoli casserole recipe?

The shuttering of Gourmet reminds us that in a click-or-die advertising marketplace, one ruled by a million instant pundits, where an anonymous Twitter comment might be seen to pack more resonance and useful content than an article that reflects a lifetime of experience, experts are not created from the top down but from the bottom up. They can no longer be coronated; their voices have to be deemed essential to the lives of their customers. That leaves, I think, little room for the thoughtful, considered editorial with which Gourmet delighted its readers for almost seven decades.

To survive, those of us who believe that inexperience rarely leads to wisdom need to swim against the tide, better define our brands, prove our worth, ask to be paid for what we do, and refuse to climb aboard this ship of fools, the one where everyone has an equal voice. Google “broccoli casserole” and make the first recipe you find. I guarantee it will be disappointing. The world needs fewer opinions and more thoughtful expertise — the kind that comes from real experience, the hard-won blood-on-the-floor kind. I like my reporters, my pilots, my pundits, my doctors, my teachers and my cooking instructors to have graduated from the school of hard knocks.”

ESG VP of Research John McKnight has been pushing this theory for some time.  Sure, he contends, we have to be open-minded and use new social media tools for our advantage, but, in a world where anyone and everyone can voice an opinion, real experience, real data, real insight, and real guidance will become increasingly harder to find and will be viewed as increasingly valuable by those who seek legitimate wisdom – the wisdom of practical experience.

In many ways, as a knowledge working industry, we’ve adopted the methods of the universally despised political media to extend our individual voices.  Whether on the far left or the far right, it’s become almost accepted that each proponent will flagrantly ignore the facts (often fabricating them), legitimate data and research, and conventional wisdom and simply belt out their opinion to the masses.  The outlets are everywhere today – from Twitter to the blogosphere – but where are the filters?  Who calls bullshit other than the opposing side?  Who is the arbiter of logic?

Traditional reporting, based with some semblance of integrity and fact, gave way to laziness – on the behalf of those “creating” reality and those of us absorbing it.  We are lazy because we let it happen – because it was cheap, dynamic, and “new”.

John’s point is that in a knowledge based society – or economy – it becomes inevitable that opinion based solely on an agenda and not based in fact or experience is beyond useless – it creates a vacuum of idiocy.  Every vendor has the right to voice their opinions as they see fit – but at least we know they represent the views (whether they admit it or not) of their employer, normally to put their company in the best possible light.  We accept that and understand it.  But where does the line get crossed from those who spout their beliefs when there is no science on which to base those opinions?  That sounds like creationism to me.  You can’t argue beliefs or opinion, but you can argue facts.

I’m all for alternative opinions and interpretation, and clearly I love a good argument – but only when we’re arguing from a basis of experience or a common set of factual conditions.  Otherwise, it’s like me arguing with my teenager.  He only ever wins if he lies, or simply wears me down.  He rarely, if ever, has fact or logic on his side.

There is such a thing as too much.  Since anyone and everyone can spout their logic, argument, or opinion without restriction, the good gets mixed up with the crap – and thus creates an over-abundance of “information”.  When that happens, the people who most need the experience and fact-based opinion are often shut out – as it’s impossible to weed through the junk to get to the gold.  In that case, apathy reigns – just as it has in the political world.  Just as it has done in the world of search.

Who wins when the ultimate consumer becomes apathetic?  The incumbent.  It’s true in politics and in business.  Apathy is the best friend of the incumbent by its very nature.  If it’s too hard to find the “real” truth, you settle for the truth you know.  That thwarts innovation and new ideas, and generally is bad for society.  It creates business monopolies just like it creates political monopolies.

So it begets an interesting question – will we eventually come full circle?  Will we pay to support those who base their wisdom on experience and data versus volume?  Did the newspaper industry have it right after all?  In some ways, the answer has to be yes, but where they screwed up was to ignore the dynamic shifts in the means in which people wanted to consume information.

The model needs to change – from every angle.

In my world, I’ve held the position that “content” is the least valuable thing we do – that our advice, based on our experiences, research, and knowledge – is what is valuable.  Mr. McKnight argues that by making our content free or close to it, we diminish our overall value.  I’m starting to think he could be right.

The fact is that in our little world, no one publishes better forward looking research on the markets we cover.  Our stuff is what companies should bet their businesses on – fact-based research with deep experience-based analysis – but the reality is that even those who pay for it, normally don’t.  It’s crazy, but it’s reality.  If people who already pay for deep fact-based content don’t aggressively consume it, how can we hope to attract those who don’t?  It’s an interesting dilemma.  If you make it freely accessible does it diminish the value or create more?  It’s a chicken and egg kind of thing.

I welcome your free, voluminous opinions on the subject.

Related posts:

1. The Red Sox Analysis
2. NetApp is Fortune Magazine’s #1 place to work…..
3. Fail Factors – Why Startups Die: Revenue versus Valuation

Tags: broccoli, new media, opinion, research, social media