Paper weight

In the past, the important thing about any new enterprise was its value(s); not necessarily how well it was done. Whether it was a new business, a new rock band or a new book it had to be something people would want. That is, the people you knew would want it today. What is the value proposition? Is this what people are into now? When the new daily paper The Independent launched in January 1986 in the UK, it was a perfectly conceived response to journalism and politics at the time. That was enough to secure its launch. It took a little longer for people to realize it wasn't actually very good. 

One aspect of the social internet is that value is no longer something that has to be understood at the beginning of innovation. Because as long as you execute well and consistently, someone will find the value they need. Your immediate friends might not see the value in a book about a school for wizards, or a network with a message limit of 140 characters - but someone will. An audience will find you.

The quality of execution is always down to the maker, and that remains their prime responsibility. Make it work, make it fast, make it right. But you don't have to make everyone share your vision - or even have too much of a vision yourself. In fact a vision needs to be jettisoned quickly if it doesn't fit.  If you think it's green but your fans think its red, then it's red. Just pivot to the new way of thinking.  

The internet can quite easily grab something from the past and give it a new value. A whole set of "retro" things have been reclaimed from cultural abandon. In earlier times, it would take a half a generation or so for a forgotten artist or notable person to have his or her reputation restored.

Unfortunately the inverse is also true, something can have its value destroyed overnight. One interesting aspect of the calamity that hit News International this week was that the News of the World was killed because it was seen as a “toxic brand”.

But the marketing terminology somehow understates the problem - many people already thought the News of the World was not worth reading well before cronies were caught guessing the credentials to voice message services. If it had continued in print, it would have still made money for a while. But it would have suffered the fate of the low valued. The British motor industry lost value over decades. Eventually it was just easier for the same people, sometimes in the same factories, to make cars for foreign companies. Perhaps the News of the World would have hit notional bottom immediately.  

Of course, it is the term "value" that has really changed; in the limited manner I use it here. Perceived value is no longer some type of peer reviewed, curated, academic term. That's because if you can ask thousands of people what they think in seconds, you don't need to rely on a coterie of opinion formers. The opinion formers are relegated to being just another network. So the result is something more akin to a market value. We still want to listen to subject matter experts, but only to avoid pitfalls.