Sorry to take so long to respond. To me, ‘level playing field’ has never equalled fairness in my mind, although that could be inferred from what I do feel the term denotes: equal access to resources. Which is interesting when flipped to fit your model of distributing resources rather than accessing them. The term ‘symmetry’ grates on me in this context; but it’s perfectly understandable if my term does the same to you.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by aDogNamedPants: I wrote this: http://bit.ly/3hGyPf. I also proofed, so sorry about that….

Any way – let me ask you this: does the phrase “level playing field” connote fairness? The reason I ask is that when I chose ‘symmetry’ it was because I feel that most businesses are operate in the same place socially. What I mean is, they try to make money by effectively distributing scarce goods. So while the market place may not be fair, or level, traditional businesses are symmetrical in organization and relationship to their customers.

That said, I could also be splitting hairs, or just plain wrong. Thoughts?

While clearly I think the asymmetry of this competition represents a new challenge for established brands, I also feel these organizations still can have a lot offer. A hurdle for them though will be understanding, or often re-understanding, what they stand for in society. For example – is Nike about shoes, or sports? Shoes is transactional, but if they’re about sports, well then what does that mean in the online space. In the case of Nike, it may mean more things like Nike+, which I think is a great example of a brand knowing what they’re about, and how to create a manifestation of that online.

To your point though, I totally agree. Until agencies understand the web in a more profound way, I don’t see how they can relay that information to their clients. Thus far, they seem unwilling to do so.

I’m thinking about what you’re writing here, Justin, and wondering where to go with it. This is the kind of stuff that ‘thought leaders’ in the industry have been talking about for months, if not years, and it seems to sink in so slowly with people outside of the industry.

I suppose that it is necessary to keep talking about listening, connecting, and engaging so that it keeps getting hammered home, until it becomes conventional wisdom. Talking about openness and the free trade of ideas until people stop acting out of fear is necessary.

The question this sparks for me is how do we drive it home for people instead of talking about it amongst ourselves? Are the social gatherings and blogs of the New Media Elite the place to continue having these discussions, or do we storm the proverbial gates of the Establishment?