Great Post Mark...Agree with your theory for the most part, yet I think that you left out a key point; Trust. Most studies show that only 2% of internet subscribers trust blogs, podcasts and other forms of Internet Media. The public still trusts in TV, Radio and Newspapers more than the internet and as much as more and more people are spending more and more time online, the level of Trust isn't there.

Note from MJ: You are absolutely correct :-)

Hi Mark,

I agree with you and have already posted about
"The Next Internet Millionaire" on my blog
also.

Glad you are a part of this movement Bro.

Even though I am in a combat zone, this has
got my attention!

See you on the flip side,

Mark Brown
The Marketing Professional
www.TheMarketingProfessional.net

Note from MJ: Hey soldier! Hope you're keeping your powder dry and your eyes open. Guys, Mark here is a real live US Army officer in Iraq. Stay safe, bro. I'm amazed that you can keep blogging and netrepreneuring while you are over there. I bow to your energy levels!

This is a fascinating post.

I think you're absolutely right about the PR factor and such. The TV types come across very well through their carefully controlled system.

Many of us have also grown up believing that these people are professionals and are, therefore, honest and objective. Of course, that's far from the truth, but the appearance is still there. That's big points to the mainstream media (MSM) side. (Is this a demonstration of Good Branding?)

The bloggers and alternative news sources don't have that default assumption on their side.

Decentralization is a great thing and it will absolutely help keep the MSM more honest (having caught them in a number of errors so far.)

Comm's project looks really interesting and I think having you onboard will add some major firepower. Good luck breaking out into the mainstream!!

To the friend in Iran, You have confirmed what I suspected all along, that, the whole truth is never told on either side.

I hope one day there will be better relations between the USA and Iran.

Home Business

Interesting idea, although I think it's more an evolutionary process, when an old info supply chain gets disintermediated and supplanted by something new.

Witness old line big media publishing their version of the truth in old line media like newspapers, radio and magazines.

The individual is able to disrupt the flow of information by publishing their account of reality through a blog, syndicating it through RSS, and possibly Google News, and having a wider reach than any geographically-bound old school media.

Is this decentralization or disintermediation?

I guess once a blogger gets popular, he might eventually become the online equivalent of the old line media and eventually be supplanted by a blogger who's more cutting edge, or gets closer to the truth.

Would the decentralizer become decentralized?

I see the whole process as evolutionary, and everything new will eventually become something old and be replaced by something else.

Call it info evolution if a buzzword is required, though it certainly signifies a progression in our ability to understand and ultimately control our world.

There is a saying here in India that means something on the lines of "don't believe everything you see". When you relate that to the mass media, especially the oh-so-popular TV, it sounds so true. If you ever come to India, you'd be surprised by the sheer number of news channels here (local, state-level and national!) and all kinds of codswallop they present. And people take it to be the truth just because it is "mass-media" and they think the news presenter is telling the truth.

Coming to the Internet, the problem here is the same, as you stated yourself, options. There are just sooooooo many websites. But I believe that thing WILL change in the near future to make it better.

By the way Mark, I also submitted my video for the Next Internet Millionaire competition. Would you please take a look if you have time? Don't vote if you don't want to, but have a look - I'd be obliged :)
Please forgive the selfish self-promotion :D

I realize this is an old post, but Mark raises an interesting point, and the first comment on trust seems spot on.

But if the question is "why hasn't the internet decentralized mass media," and the response is "lack of trust," then the assumption must be that people trust mass media. Why is that? (As an aside, it's pretty scary.)

Here's an idea: One must somehow be successful, extremely dedicated (i.e. a hard worker), or otherwise notorious (for good or bad, mostly bad though) to get mass media attention, whereas any yahoo, ahem, with a Yahoo account and a hundred bucks can be on the internet giving advice to the public in no time. There's really no screening process innate to the medium other than having a distribution list.

Here's another potential reason: People on the internet require that you give something in order to get something. For example, squeeze pages. While brilliant from a marketers perspective, I'll bet that most people are hesitant to give out their email address when they don't know what they're going to get. Moreover, when one does finally get the "free report," it's nothing more than a sales page! How annoying!!! And then the ultimate creme in the face: When one finally does buy a product, it's littered with blatantly obvious affiliate links. In other words, one can endlessly spend money and never get anything really, really valuable other than advice on where or how to spend more money!!! I hate to harp on a friend of Mark's here, but MyFirstList is a prime example of this. You want people to trust the net, then give them something good for $100, not just advice on where and how to spend more money that will benefit the promoter.

The words of Ralphy from the movie "A Christmas Story" come to mind. Remember when he finally gets his decoder ring in the mail and uses it to cipher a message for the first time?: "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine . . ." In disgust, Ralphy says, "It's a crummy sales pitch" and tosses the decoder in the trash.

That's my best guess at why people don't trust the net. Hey, I trust nytimes.com, cnn.com, and other sites that also convey information in other mediums (e.g. Economist, Business Week, etc.) to the same extent I trust them in those other mediums, and I probably get most of my information from those sites, as opposed to getting it from television, radio, or magazines. For some reason (one that I'm pretty sure I have pinpointed), I also tend to trust Mark Joyner's content.

So now the question becomes "how is MJ really different from other sources of information on the internet?" I don't think it has to do with trusting the medium, but I do think it has to do with people proving themselves through some sort of selection process OTHER than just saying "I made $1mm last year on the internet." Ever hear of Charles Ponzi? He made a lot of money too.