USA Today took a bold leap across the proverbial Social Media chasm today with the launch of their redesigned Web site. (Letter To Our Readers, New Features Explained) Opinions are mixed with more negative than positive reactions - Don Doge points out that most readers don’t like it, Steve Rubel says it does not go far enough, Tony Hung comments that their audience may not not ready for the technology.

Michael Arrington was right to commend the leadership, saying “[their effort] show[s] an intelligent commitment to building community at the site.” I join him in his praise, despite some concerns with their tactical execution and some more serious strategic issues with how they are attempting to engage their readers. Don Dodge points out the biggest problem with getting a clear assessment of the initial feelings, which he believes came from “readers with negative comments [who] were reacting to the layout changes, not the feature enhancements.” There are just too many variables that have changed to know how well the audience will feel about this within a month or two (though I also find the design awkward). My hope is that the leadership at USA Today will stick with this and follow the great advice of Forrester Analyst Josh Bernoff who says “Don’t look back. [...] But don’t stand pat. [...] Bring the readers into the print paper.”

From my perspective, Scott Karp asks the most interesting question though, which is “Who is right about the Social Media Revolution - The People or The Revolutionaries?“  There are three very important things to consider in all of this.

1. USA Today audience is largely aligned with “fast food oriented media consumption”

Simply put, there are not enough people in the early majority (chasm crossing analysis) of the general population yet who look, act, think and feel like social media champions do about this ‘revolution in media”. David Watson of Disney gave a great presentation at the workshop we helped facilitate during Fast Forward 07 where he used the metaphor of Social Media Producer/Consumers as floaters, swimmers and divers.

Floaters. They will float through whatever river of media they are presented from the comfort of their lean back experience.

Swimmers. The organizers, taggers and aggregators of information, swimming through the river and reporting on their experience

Divers. Those who go deep into the issue with philosophical and strategic insights, often backed by extensive research.

It is seemingly obvious that USA Today’s audience is made up of mostly floaters, as most of the nutritional value of their editorial comes in small bites, as opposed to more detailed examinations of current events. I recall former CEO Al Neuharth once saying something along the lines of “people don’t have time for the news any more, give them what they need most and give it to them quick” [paraphrasing for lack of a quote source on this]. Of course, in an attempt to “go to where the puck is going to be”, they are challenging the very core of their legacy values, which is bound to raise conflicts between the current readership and the citizen journalists they are ultimately trying to reach as part of their broader initiative to transform the company. Perhaps they will ultimately buy NowPublic once things get further along, pas the early stages of confronting the Innovator’s Dilemma.

2. Participation is largely situational and personal, just as with all volunteerism and social activism

At present, they don’t have a very strong context being presented that will give people a reason to participate (other than the complaints about the changes at least, or for some individual’s desire to promote racism). The values of the community must connect with individual passions and a higher purpose for being there and particiapting. It also needs a better answer to the age old question What’s In it For Me (WIIFM)? This is one of the reasons why I have long warned against anyone thinking that the growth of Social Media will be like a hockey stick. It will be more gradual and flatten out over time with occasional big jumps resulting from UI/technology advancements or major news events that touch us all and invokes an impassioned response.

Where is the demand/need coming from for the shifting media landscape? A lot of people still trust Main Stream Media, and distrust the “Bloggers” as much if not more then they distrust technology itself. Cultural and language barriers between early adopters of technology and everyday people are key inhibitors, but we must not underestimate previous smear campaigns such as Forbes’ widely reviled “Attack of the Bloggers”

Of course, we also need to take into account the lack of time available for people to participate, as work life balance has shifted to an all-in-one worklife, with no balance and no separation for many (like me). This is further compounded by an economic boom that prevents many from having time to contribute or even from finding the value from learning how to participate. Most folks I know who have a regular day job (as opposed to one ‘in the industry’) who are creating media and participating in the conversation, are replacing previous media consumption activities with media production and YouTube surfing…

So USA Today has not made a compelling argument to their readers as to why they would want to participate in this new way. There needs to be a stronger appeal that taps into their readership’s personal passions and they need to present a better context in which readers will be encouraged to become active.

3. Media Companies need to “become the Town Hall, and stop thinking like the Town Crier”

I have shared this with some folks I met from USA Today and many other media people over the past two years, but with this move from USA Today, it seems more organizations understand this and are heading in that direction. Until we get more real world experiments from companies brave enough to test the waters, how this manifests appropriately will largely be unknown. My chief complaint with USA Today’s tactical execution here is that they largely embraced the ideals of Socil Media strategy without practically adapting them to the specific situation of their readership, their brand and their strengths/weaknesses.

The walled gardens of Web 1.0 communities, Web 1.2 portals and early Web 2.0 variants like Ryze and even LinkedIn will be torn down. It is only a matter of time as Stowe Boyd demands “What I want is a social news application not limited to the content of any particular media company.” Communities need to look out for the interests of their community members, which means they need to make it easy for people to come and go as they choose, as they do from real town halls and town squares. This should mean it is easy to go back and forth between USA Today and the NY Times as much as between LinkedIn and tribe. Marc Canter is surely right about making social networking, identity, profiles, reputation and relationships open and more portable, I wish more people grokked that important point.

The Town Hall may be administered by a ‘benevolent dictator’ as Dave Winer is fond of saying, but it is operated for the benefit of everyone in the town, so take care of everyone and stop trying to lock people in artificially and focus more energy on keeping people around by offering a better product/service, a better perspective and a better experience. This reminds me of my favorite saying from the dotcom era via Fast Company which went something like “It’s not the first one that wins, but the first one to do it right that wins.” So kudos to USA Today for trying, lets hope they keep working on making it right…

So in response to Scott Karp’s question, I am in agreement with his assesment that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but ultimately, it will be a matter of individual, situational and contextual relevance.  Not everyone needs to  participate in this way, but the systems utilized by media companies should allow for it and the people who operate those systems should encourage active participation by those who want to be heard.

[Interesting side note, Knochic points out that "The diggers are pissed...again"]