famebook™

The End of Solitude - As everyone seeks more and broader connectivity, the still, small voice speaks only in silence - WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Thanks William, you have done us an immense service by eloquently alluding to our business model for www.famebook.com. We are launching a new and disruptive platform this year which we believe will come to fulfill the realisation of Andy Warhol's prediction that we shall all one day be famous for five minutes.

More than that, we will be providing an opportunity for everyone to create a live and also 'lasting' biography and in the process personalising people and places, profitably and philanthropically.

Not everyone will hit our front page which is reserved for the world's most famous people, but within their social groups and geographically we offer a chance for everyone to be a star!

We are launching a fairly unique environment at www.famebook.com and I have my own intellectual perspectives on its wider relevance which are possibly more optimistic than William's, but hopefully nonetheless worthy of consideration. Not least of which is the possibility that we are entering a new age when communication might allow us to personalise people and places to such an extent that the ability to generalise a population in political terms is irreversibly eroded, and with it the opportunity for individuals to cultivate sustainable mass opinion and manipulate the herd principal on which wars have always been based.

Solitude has doubtless also created some monsters who have come out of hiding and darkened history with their deeds.

www.famebook.com - An Access All Areas backstage pass to the world's most revered and perhaps also shining a light on the future!

Jan Simmonds CEO

Response to: Gerd Leonhard's piece on Time for Action: the music industry needs the same CHANGE that Obama brings to America

http://www.mediafuturist.com/2009/01/time-for-a-change-the-music-industry-needs-a-change-of-direction-like-america-needs-obama-midem-09-t.html

Jan Simmonds said...

A refreshingly 'heart on sleeve' and poignant piece - and totally empathised with.

Having worked in music for over 12 years as a Manager of some 'household names' and also of some who should have been, followed by a migration via parenthood to becoming an online entrepreneur, I have both a subjective and objective view on this. In my humble opinion the music industry's cup could actually be half full...it's all a question of perspective!

Even before the advent of social networking and recent moves towards DRM free and ad-revenue based models, the dumbing down and lack of investment in long term sustainable artists, not to mention the heavy working of back catalogue to satisfy shareholders has left us with acts like Aretha Franklin, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, etc. as a memory of the good times, instead of as a handful of acts in a continuous line of iconic lasting 'brands'.

The latter is of course at the heart of the matter! An artist is just an artist until a huge amount of exposure and financing establishes them as a 'brand'. Now more than ever the need to deliver brands which can live up to the sheer scale and scope of new delivery platforms will in my opinion, ultimately bring out the best in the real media men and women around the world.

As sure as no teenager will aspire to be famous for the sake of a few thousand a year in CPM based advertising dollars, we as an audience will continue to desire universally accepted and adored brands, which are concomitant with the very best of the best. The majority of the worlds populations, will continue to want to watch TV shows that all their friends are also watching and go to see films with their favourite movie stars in. The same applies to the music that we enjoy and so the idea that this is all sustainable for free is as ludicrous to me as the thought that Google can manage the whole world's advertising or Time Warner or Sony BMG can dominate social networking.

I want a front window to my media consumption and within that front window, I want to access to old and new brands and where appropriate want that to be portable wherever I go. If I hear a song on a celebrity's current favourite playlist within say www.famebook.com as I'm browsing that site, I'll happily pay to have it portable and embellished by imagery and video as say with iTunes or similar and would expect for it to be delivered alongside relevant quality brand advertising. The moment that window is surrounded entirely by Google adwords, it would no longer possess the cache I deserve and would not be my window of choice anymore. The same applies to news and magazine content as well of course.

Google, AOL, Microsoft, Facebook, My Space etc. all need to collectively engage with the media giants who understand better than anyone how to create brands as much as they themselves need to integrate with the former. Create something of value and people will pay for it. Dilute it to random user-generated and asinine content and noone will in the end be paying anything and people will find other places to source their music, news, films etc. The advertisers haven't stopped wanting to pay the right price to reach decent audiences, but until the two world's come together properly, they must be tearing their hair out.

I personally happen to have an iGoogle homepage with about thirty or so feeds and expect Famebook to be alongside Facebook, and further indulging my desire for the top news, TV, blogs, and of course music. My long term loyalty to that window, could be greatly enhanced by allowing me to have an iTunes feed or equivalent, instant ability to hear someone's favourite song, read a description of and perhaps buy their favourite book or watch trailers for movies, and all of course tailored to my own tastes.

This is the new world order for the music industry and traditional media conglomerates. They now have a chance to go back to the roots of what they are are founded on and make sure that content is not only reaching me through old established routes, but is where of course I am now much more likely to buy it. Most importantly, make it brilliant, so I'll pay to keep it coming. Honour the brands they still own and stress to Google et al that owning the ad model around search is fine, but trying to permeate their business model with CPC ads doesn't serve them or the consumer. Together however, they could provide an unprecedented level of audience access which could lead rise to a whole host of globally viral sensations equivalent to The Beatles et al, and which could then underpin future investment into even bigger and better things when the PC and TV are one and the same.

The thought of an A&R guy working at Microsoft is as crazy as my buying a PC from Clive Davis or Motown...I still want to own music, go to gigs, get caught up in the excitement of a breaking act and let advertising tell me what the best mobile or breakfast cereal is. So does everyone I know.

Just hope these guys can work out why all the above, should be stating the obvious!

Sign up for www.famebook.com for pre-launch news and updates!

Re: Google rejects Newspaper Industry - Silicon Valley Watcher

Response to http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/01/goog_rejects_di.php  

Tom Foremski SVW

I am quite sure that Google can save newspapers, if they are prepared to save themselves!

Google has created perhaps the largest metaphorical ocean and Facebook et al have created 'Countries' amidst those seas. As sure as Apple and Microsoft dominate operating systems, the resultant change of landscape is almost certainly irreversible.

The Newspapers have resisted this by trying to create their own automatic 'easy-money' environments instead of negotiating rights of passage for their liners with the new incumbents.. or translated; have devalued their online value by working purely on volume attraction (in a vain attempt to compete maybe?) rather than nurturing their audiences and advertisers towards long-term loyalty. A CPM business model for newspapers is as meaningless as a Google without some aggregated value in top search results and concomitant brands.

Google needs quality content to satisfy any long-term and sustainable audiences' who journey through them, and the Newspapers have to come to accept the fact that they are demanding and expensive machines which now have to learn how to be 'profitably portable'! It is in Google's interests to both facilitate this and not also try to be something which it is not by trying to own the content creation space as well. (Read my other blog posts for why I believe this to be true.) In simple terms, why Tiffany is paying on a CPC basis to be on the front web page of The Tribune and Vogue.com's lead advertisers are HP and Aviva, again on CPC, completely highlights the point and baffles me! The advertisers are still there who need quality access to sophisticated niche consumer audiences, so the fact that those paid opportunities don't yet exist elegantly online is what needs to be resolved...and fast!

As I read it Eric is still offering that dialogue...in my humble opinion the Newspapers should take it! Jan [@] famebook.com

Definition of 'FRIEND' - Jan's Social Networking Dictionary - Entry One!

friend - Pronunciation [frend] – noun

1. a person identified by a small image which they alone believe best describes them; a person who totally loves you even though you are blue and shaped like a question mark, a cold girl in a bikini
2. a person who is connected to lots of other useful FRIENDS or at least Robert Scoble and Michael Arrington
3. a person who has super poked your wife; a person who pokes many people.. esp. other friends: I know your Wife! Will you be my FRIEND?
4. a friend of your friend’s friend. Who the F**K are you?…I am your FRIEND
5. a person who follows you everywhere with lots of their friends. (PLU) What’s that tweeting noise in my ear? We are your FRIENDS!
6. a collection of people that you don't know but adore...up to a maximum of 5000. I would like to be your FRIEND? F.O.A.D., I have too many FRIENDS
 
– verb (used with object)

7. Rare. to befriend. Michael Arrington has added you as a FRIEND! Please click IGNORE or CONFIRM to BEFRIEND him!

— Idiom

8. make friends with, to enter into friendly relations with; become a friend to; be confirmed; invited to poke; followed;
________________________________________
Origin: bef. 900; fb friend, frendster, OE frēond friend, lover, relative, twit, tweet, twat, twot, follower, deviant, stranger, frendfeeder (c. OS friund, OHG friunt (G Freund), Goth frijōnds), orig. prp. of frēogan, c. Goth frijōn to love someone you've never met
http://famebook.typepad.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the JAN SIMMONDS Social Networking Dictionary, © @famebook, Inc. 2008.