I’ve just been reading his second book, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age, which, despite the jargon-heavy title, is every bit as good as his first, Here Comes Everybody. I can’t do the full complexity of his arguments justice here, but I’d like to focus on a couple of points.
Shirky argues that, thanks to the internet, we are “becoming one another’s infrastructure”. We are also free to “participate in the public conversation” at the click of a mouse. Unlike television, new media provides people with ample opportunities to “comment on the material, to share it with their friends, to label, rate, or rank it – and, of course, to discuss it with other viewers around the world”.
Facebook, Twitter and the like may look “trivial and frivolous”, he adds, but social media gives people the capacity to connect, communicate and, if necessary, take action. He cites the example of the lifting of the ban on US beef imports in South Korea, a decision that was reversed because of popular, internet-driven protest and forced President Lee Myung-bak to sack his cabinet. Not so trivial after all.
How many people are part of this global community? An exact figure is difficult to arrive at, partly because of shared computers and cyber cafés, but Shirky estimates that 2 billion people have access to the internet, while 3 billion have a mobile phone. We live, for the first time in human history, in a world where “being part of a globally interconnected group is the normal case for most citizens”.
If you disagree, I suggest you look at a few winery and generic websites. How many of them connect with their audience? How many present information in new, interesting and visually appealing ways? How many of them ask for feedback or seek to create communities of fans and aficionados? How many are on Facebook and Twitter, conducting tutored tastings or telling people about their latest releases, winemaker dinners and so on? Surprisingly few.
Wine writers have adapted faster to change than the wine trade. There are two reasons for this. First, we’re in the communication business, so are supposed to be good at using words. And second, we’ve all seen the dwindling number of wine publications and the truncated space allocated to the subject by many national newspapers. If we want to present our opinions to a wide audience, and engage with them as individuals and groups, then increasingly we have to do so online.
As a comparatively late convert myself (whose website will be relaunched and redesigned later this year) I raise my spittoon in admiration to wine writers such as Jamie Goode, Tom Cannavan, Jancis Robinson MW, Neal Martin and Tyler Colman (aka Dr Vino) who saw the potential of new media at an early stage. Good wine writing doesn’t have to be marginalised any more. Indeed, it has a greater opportunity than ever to connect and communicate with real consumers.
The same applies to the wine business. One of the most remarkable things about the internet, typified by Wikipedia but apparent everywhere, is that people are happy to share their opinions for nothing. Some of these opinions are worth more than others, but they are freely – and often rapidly – expressed.
If you want feedback on a new wine, label, brand or concept, what better way to get it? Using new communications tools, punters readily exchange views, news and tasting tips on a global scale.
Lobbying and, where necessary, direct action are part of this, too. At a time when wine is under threat from health and religious lobbies, the internet is the place to tell the other side of the story: to promote the diversity of wine, its role in a balanced diet and its suitability with food.
A global coalition of wine lovers would be a very powerful group of consumers, capable of influencing the way wine is made, taxed and sold. To people who argue that it could never happen, I say this: the brave new world created by the internet and social media is the present and the future; it’s time we embraced it.