Dewey Decimal in a Web2.0 World

In 1876 Melvil Dewey invented what is now commonly called the Dewey Decimal System. And in doing so created a recurring response to people exposed to large amounts of information. The publication of books led to (at that time) a great deal of available information with few effective ways of filtering what information was valuable to each individual. As archaic as the Dewey system may seem vs. today instantaneous Amazon search or local library database, it is a great example of what is once again happening today on the web.

The scale of information available on the web now is exponentially greater than the days of when print was king. One could argue that the internet is the new library. If I recall correctly, I only went to the library 4 times during my college days. An early response to this vast ocean of information was something that looked like a awful version of Alltop (Think America Online 1995)

At the time (sadly not that long ago) this classification of information on the world wide web was enough to get us to the specific knowledge we were seeking. Perhaps it even introduced us to topics we would never have even thought of searching for.

Looking at the landscape of today, we have tools such as Digg, Delicious, Twitter, blogs, and even good ol’ Wikipedia. Not only can we access databases of information that organize within themselves. We have tools to organize the database which link circularly to each other through both automated and social means.

My personal thought is that we have already reached a point where the level of information exceeds our ability to organize it. There are no longer so few resources on a topic that we can find our source and be happy. We are required to mine for the right knowledge, sift through the useful and worthless, and then save the MULTIPLE versions of what we have, and of course SHARE what we feel is worthy for the rest of the world to see. There is no longer an AUTHORITY on most subjects, rather RESPECTED sources/individuals.

On a separate note, how does this translate to marketers? It’s very possible that as consumers of the internet are being conditioned to seek out the most accurate information out there in regards to general news and information, they are going to do the very same thing about your brand. Creating ads talking about how great brand X is and the benefits of feature Y are fine, but the power of putting validity into that message is no longer in the hands of the advertiser. If there is any kind of flaw or “asterisk” in your message, you will be found out.

Does this mean that all messaging needs to revert to very simple statements and hundreds of lawyers need to review the creative before it goes out? No. What it does suggest though, is that as a brand you must have a voice to respond. In any debate, whether between two friends, a court room, or for the position of president, every side has a voice to defend their message. If one side decides to remove themselves from that debate they most certainly will lose. The best thing a brand can do is have that voice so that they can respond to those fact-checkers and most vocal of their (positive or negative) consumers. The ads will still reach the masses and most won’t take the time to discuss your brand, but the ones that do decide to engage in conversation should always have someone on your side to talk to.

Reposted from 2007