Scoble, Vogels, and why Amazon Totally Gets It (Yet Doesn’t…)

The latest tempest in a teapot regarding blogging in business is how Werner Vogels at Amazon grilled Shel and Scoble and was unable to get concrete answers as to why Amazon should be blogging.

Amazon really gets having a conversation with their markets. Always has. For years, they’ve had scores of editors writing daily about products and other items they think their audience is interested in. Amazon issues RSS feeds. Amazon has a system for gathering customer input and responding. They listen to the blogosphere, and participate when necessary (I assume largely by commenting.) Vogel is right, there is no compelling need to immediately add a superfluous layer of communication by having all their employees blogging.

In essence Amazon had the “blog” culture early, they just didn’t have the tools to do it, so they had to roll their own, and spend a gazillion dollars to do it. The problem is that now anyone with a laptop and a pulse can function as an online book reviewer and will have visibility equal to (and in many cases superior to) Amazon’s salaried editors.

I think this may explain why Scoble and Shel were largely “grilled” about blogging during their visit at Amazon. If I’d helped create a powerful, incredibly expensive system that gave my company a significant competitive advantage, I’d be a little defensive about some cheap, open, alternative that significantly replicated our efforts and promised to lessen our edge.

Nicholas Carr wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review in 2003 that captures what’s going on here. In the piece IT Doesn’t Matter, he describes how key IT advantages rapidly become commodity items. He says that the cash you throw at having a technological lead could put you at a disadvantage when competitors buy the same stuff for cheap later.

The great example is teenagers and cars as described by Kevin Maney:

“To understand his argument, think of IT as cars and companies as teenagers. When I was in high school, hardly any boys had cars. So the ones who did own cars had a huge strategic girl-luring advantage over those who didn’t. Those boys were mobile. They could get to every party. They could make out in their cars. My friend Ed had a car that had gaping holes in the floor and belched smoke like an Iraqi oil well fire, and even that was a strategic advantage.

Today, in my neighborhood of the spoiled, every high school boy has a car. So having a car is no longer a strategic advantage. Having a Lexus might give you a bit of an edge over a classmate with a Hyundai, but it’s not even close to the gulf between a boy with a car and a boy with no car.

Bottom line: As a strategic advantage for teenage boys, cars no longer matter.”

So. Here is how the discussion might have gone 45 years ago:

Scoble: Werner, you should get one of these Volkswagen Bugs. We’re all getting them, they’re great, and SO cheap.

Vogels: Robert, why would I do that? I have an Oldsmobile! Worked like a dog for three summers and borrowed money from my Uncle to buy it. Been driving it for years! It’s way better than that crappy tin can…

Scoble: Well, I like parking at the drive in. You should consider the Bug because…

Vogels: I’ve been parking there for years! Tell me what the Bug can do that my Oldsmobile can’t do? My Olds has power windows for crissake!

Scoble: Er, ahh, I’ll get back to you. I guess you aren’t coming to the party tonight–all the Bug owners are getting together. It’s a big and growing community, we have a great time talking about road trips.

Vogels: I’ve been on tons of road trips. Tell me why I’d even consider a VW? They’re smaller, slower..

Scoble: I guess you might not need one.

Vogels: HA! SEE? I have to go to my night job now, have to pay off the loan on my Olds.

Scoble: I’m off to the party.

As a side note, Nicholas Carr has been following this debate, yet hasn’t mentioned the obvious linkage to his own HBR article…