DISQUS

Daiv Russell · 5 months ago

See, I actually think that Jeff Jarvis, et al. are those who are missing the point.

WSJ and other great big "concerns" like them invest quite a bit of money into building THEIR brand. Those who work for them try to leverage that BIG brand to create their OWN brand.

If the individuals who work for WSJ (as an example) were to take the money and effort and marketing that WSJ put into creating their OWN brand rather than constantly, consistently, and exclusively reinforcing the brand of their master... err, employer... well, then, that's just a little bit of money that WSJ ISN'T making, that theoretically it COULD be making if that same time spent talking like a "real person" were instead spent paying homage to the mother ship.

This is business, and that's why it's called "work" and why people don't complain about their long commute and long hours spent driving to "fun" every day. They pay you and, in exchange, they own the efforts of your labor.

If you work for a huge company and you want to leverage their brand to build your own -- guess what? They don't want that, they probably won't like that, and they might just fire you and replace you like the little cog in the great big machine that you really are.

- Daiv http://Twitter.com/DaivRawks

mathewi · 5 months ago

I can see your point, Dave, but I disagree. Yes, media outlets risk creating personal brands by allowing their writers to promote themselves in this way -- and some of those brands might decide to go out on their own. But that happens all the time, just as musicians who feel they have outgrown a label often move on to a different one, or go direct.

The reality is that people tend to identify with and relate to individuals, not to corporate brands -- or rather, the value they see in corporate brands is an amalgam of their respect for or admiration of or attraction to personalities within that corporate entity.

Daiv Russell · 5 months ago

Perhaps I wasn't as direct as I should have been: WSJ's policy is stupid and based upon their greed, rather than service to their readership. Their policy, as with every policy of every other huge company, is about keeping their money and making as much more as possible.

If one has grown to big as an individual to be fulfilled at WSJ (or wherever), then one should leave them, and thus one readily becomes unaffected by their rules. If one is not yet big enough to leave said nest, one will remain impacted by the rules of their host.

- Daiv