SOME MAP-READING ADVICE for the media: “Really with the ease and speed of web sources there is no excuse for reporters, or at least their editor when the reporter is in the field, to not check the web for correct locations, place names and other facts.”
As I work on my company’s product, one of the key issues is how to get customers to use it. Sales can get you initial sales, but if the product isn’t used, you’ll get no repeat sales and very little growth. On the other hand, if your product becomes a normal and expected part of the customer’s workflow, you’ve got yourself a success.
The best way to do this is to have your product perform a function that the customer already does, with your product making the task faster / easier / more reliable / etc. Then you don’t have to explain why the customer would want to do what the product does, only why they should use your product to do it.
I think about this when wondering why netsearches have penetrated the “civilian” market so thoroughly with apparently very little penetration in Old Media. I would suggest that the above product issue is why.
The key thing to consider here is that normal people use netsearches to verify information because verification was already something they did when they could. When not done, it was because it was too difficult. As a result, when netsearches became cheap, easy, and very accessible, people didn’t start verifying, they simply did it more often and more thoroughly.
Yet Old Media, by and large, doesn’t seem to use even the simplest netsearches to verify. I think netsearches haven’t been adopted because verification has never been a high priority, so it doesn’t fit in to the workflow. Verification is a new step in the workflow and that’s always a much hard sell then an improvement to an existing step. Moreover, Old Media apparently doesn’t (in general) see the utility of verifcation, either. A bit of a sobering thought, isn’t it?